Protesters to Avoid Charges After Disrupting Minnesota Church Service
Several anti-ICE demonstrators, including former CNN reporter Don Lemon, will not face state criminal charges for disrupting a church service in Minnesota earlier this year. Leaders of the church criticized this decision, arguing that it effectively allows activists to interfere with religious gatherings without consequences.
St. Paul City Attorney Eileen Kao stated on Wednesday that the evidence available does not support criminal charges under Minnesota law, and her office will not be proceeding with any charges.
“After careful review of video footage, investigative reports, and other materials, prosecutors have concluded that the current evidence does not meet the requirements for criminal charges under Minnesota law,” Kao’s statement explained.
Federal authorities, however, have already charged 39 individuals, including Lemon, with civil rights violations stemming from the unrest, with a federal lawsuit currently in progress.
Church Leaders Respond
The decision by the city attorney has elicited strong criticism from the leadership of Cities Church, where the demonstration took place on January 18 in protest of federal immigration enforcement in Minneapolis.
Senior Pastor Jonathan Parnell remarked, “By the St. Paul City Attorney’s reasoning, it seems permissible for disruptors to invade places of worship, create fear among families, and halt religious ceremonies—just label it as a ‘protest.'”
The protests erupted after activists discovered that one of the church’s pastors was also an officer with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) involved in a major federal enforcement action in the state. During the demonstration, participants were heard shouting, “Justice for Renee Good,” in reference to a shooting incident involving federal agents.
Attorney Stresses Rights Balance
Kao emphasized that the decision not to file charges should not be seen as an endorsement of illegal activities or public disorder. “The right to protest peacefully is protected just like the right to practice religion,” she mentioned. “Finding a balance between these crucial rights is essential in our decision-making.”
Kao indicated that the demonstration did not involve violence, property damage, or threats to public safety. Meanwhile, the church’s legal representatives argued that merely avoiding physical destruction does not imply that legal violations did not occur.
