Journalists Don Lemon, Georgia Fort seek dismissal in St. Paul church protest case
Don Lemon fights St. Paul church protest case
Don Lemon, Georgia Fort and other defendants charged in connection with a January protest at Cities Church in St. Paul are asking a federal court to dismiss their cases. Defense attorneys argue the prosecution violates First Amendment protections, is politically motivated and fails to establish a crime under the FACE Act.
ST. PAUL, Minn. (FOX 9) - Journalists and dozens of others charged after a protest at a St. Paul church are asking the court to throw out the federal case.
Speech and political targeting arguments take center stage
Local perspective:
Protesters went to Cities Church because an ICE field director was its pastor. Federal prosecutors charged them under a 1994 law mainly associated with protecting abortion clinics, and Lemon and Fort raised four dismissal arguments that other defendants joined in part.
Lemon and Fort argue the First Amendment should protect them as journalists, and they say even the grand jury indictment recognizes that. Prosecutors argued that obstructing people inside a church during a protest is not protected speech.
If the case goes to trial, prosecutors plan to ask for a jury instruction saying there is no First Amendment protection for a journalist participating in a crime. Prosecutors also called Lemon and Fort's actions un-American and said the journalists were not singled out because 36 other defendants also face charges.
What they're saying:
Defense attorney Joe Thompson, who was a temporary head of President Donald Trump's DOJ in Minnesota and quit during Operation Metro Surge, argued the case is a vindictive prosecution aimed at the president's perceived enemies. Thompson said he spent 17 years at DOJ and had never seen the kind of political interference he says has surfaced in the last year or two.
The defense argued Trump has made clear for years that he dislikes Lemon because Lemon has criticized him. They said the prosecution moved forward because Trump did not like the protest's message and the fact that Lemon amplified it. Prosecutors acknowledged the path to a grand jury indictment was unorthodox but still fit within normal processes.
"There have been instances where right-wing protesters have gone into church, disrupted the church for that, and no one's been prosecuted. And it was actually the policy of the Trump administration from the beginning to dismiss face-stack charges, because usually they involve anti-abortion protesters," said defense attorney Jordan Kushner.
Defense challenges the charges and the law
Dig deeper:
All defense attorneys argued the government failed to state an offense. They say prosecutors built a conspiracy case around the fact that people met before entering the church, even though the indictment does not accuse anyone of violence.
Defense attorneys said the government's theory rests on claims that protesters "largely surrounded" the congregation and scared some parishioners. They argued that still does not meet the standard for obstruction because people could move around without danger.
Prosecutors disagreed and argued they do not need physical touching to show force. "When a mob goes in and physically seizes control of private property, that's the use of force," prosecutors argued. One prosecutor also quoted a Russian general who said "quantity has a quality all its own."
Commerce clause
Big picture view:
Defense attorneys also argued the church section of the FACE Act is unconstitutional and that this kind of case should be left to the states. Attorneys in the case believe this is the first time the "place of worship" section of the law has been charged in the 32 years since it became law.
St. Paul's city attorney's office chose not to file charges, and prosecutors told the court they want the case to go to a jury.
Prosecutors repeatedly said a church is commercial by nature, so it fits within the Commerce clause. They added that Cities Church sends money to an overarching organization in Tennessee.
What's next:
Attorneys said the timeline remains unclear and more arguments and filings will follow Monday’s courtroom activity. The magistrate will send a recommendation to another judge, who will make the final ruling. They expect that process to take months, possibly until April.
The Source: FOX 9's Corin Hoggard, who was in court for the Nov. 9 arguments.