TDFP Exclusive: ‘Journalists Are Not Special,’ DOJ Tells Judge as It Fights Don Lemon and Georgia Fort’s Bids to Toss Church Protest Charges
The Justice Department told a federal judge on Friday that “journalists are not special” and must “obey criminal laws, just like everyone else,” as it urged the court to reject former cable news anchor Don Lemon’s and independent journalist Georgia Fort’s bids to throw out federal charges tied to a January protest that disrupted a church service in St. Paul, Minnesota.
The arguments come in three briefs filed Oct. 16 in United States v. Levy Armstrong, No. 0:26-cr-00025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, before U.S. District Judge Laura M. Provinzino. The briefs are signed by Civil Rights Division attorneys, with U.S. Attorney Daniel N. Rosen and Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon listed on the signature blocks. The Digital Free Press found no news reports on the government’s filings as of Saturday night.
The Digital Free Press has reached out to the Justice Department, the U.S. Attorney's Office for Minnesota and attorneys for Fort for comment, and will update this story with any response.
WHAT THE CASE IS ABOUT
Prosecutors say that on Sunday, Jan. 18, 2026, a group of about 39 people “descended on Cities Church” and disrupted its morning worship service in what the government calls a “premeditated attack that targeted the church because one if its pastors is an ICE officer.” The government says all 38 defendants charged in the case were part of that group.
A superseding indictment returned Feb. 26 charges the defendants with conspiracy against rights under 18 U.S.C. § 241 and with violating the FACE Act, 18 U.S.C. § 248(a)(2), which bars using force, threats of force or physical obstruction to interfere with people exercising religious freedom at a place of worship. Lemon and Fort were among the first eight defendants indicted on Jan. 29, according to the government’s filing. All defendants are presumed innocent unless proven guilty.
JOURNALISTS ARE NOT SPECIAL
In a 41-page brief opposing Fort’s First Amendment motion to dismiss, prosecutors wrote: “Defendant Fort argues that she cannot be prosecuted for her alleged federal crimes because she decided to livestream them. That is not how the First Amendment works.”
Under a heading titled “Journalists Are Not Above the Law,” the brief says: “Journalists are not special. They must obey criminal laws, just like everyone else.”
The government argued that if federal copyright law can restrict a broadcast of “important news,” then “the FACE Act can restrict a journalist’s livestream of ‘important news.’” It also said it “contends that Fort was not acting solely in her capacity as a journalist,” while arguing that question is irrelevant to the motion.
The brief quotes the indictment’s allegation that Fort “approached the pastor and largely surrounded him” and “physically obstructed his freedom of movement,” and argues that “the First Amendment does not protect force, threats of force, or physical obstruction, even by journalists.”
Fort’s lawyers argued in her Aug. 6 motion that any conviction “could only rest on conduct squarely protected by the First Amendment Speech and Press Clauses, in a case designed to retaliate and censor Fort for her reporting,” and asked the court to dismiss the charges with prejudice.
‘TIME TRAVEL IS THE LEAST OF DEFENDANTS’ PROBLEMS’
In a second, 26-page brief, the government opposed a joint defense motion to dismiss the case as selective and vindictive. Lemon’s lawyers argued in August that the charges against him were vindictive, The Hill reported at the time.
The defendants pointed to a Jan. 20, 2026, social-media post by President Trump that, as the government’s brief describes it, called people who took part in the “Church Raid” “troublemakers who should be thrown in jail.” Prosecutors responded: “At the most, this social-media post establishes that both the President and the Department of Justice believed that Defendants should be indicted.”
The brief then turned to the timeline. It says the defense’s own motion acknowledged that federal agents began interviewing witnesses on Jan. 19 and that a decision to use the FACE Act had already been made, which the government says makes it “temporally impossible” for a Jan. 20 post to have driven that decision. “Time travel is the least of Defendants’ problems,” prosecutors wrote.
The government called the defense’s evidence “a single Presidential social-media post and some decontextualized remarks by a Department of Justice official,” and said two policy documents the defense cited, a September 2025 presidential memorandum on domestic terrorism and a December 2025 memo from then-Attorney General Pam Bondi, are irrelevant to this prosecution. The brief also said the decisions by Minnesota’s attorney general and St. Paul’s city attorney not to bring state charges “appears to reflect partisan and discriminatory application of state law.”
Prosecutors asked the judge to deny the motion without a hearing or discovery, writing that “Lemon has failed to ‘raise a significant doubt’” about the government’s motives.
WHAT DOJ SAYS ABOUT DON LEMON
In a third, 35-page brief answering six defense motions that argue the indictment fails to state a crime, including Lemon’s, the government laid out its account of his role, citing the indictment.
According to the brief, Lemon attended a “pre-operation briefing” the morning of the protest and told his audience he was in Minnesota with an organization gearing up for a “resistance” operation against federal immigration policies. The government says that, “although he now claims he was there to just get the news,” Lemon stepped away from two organizers “so his microphone would not accidentally divulge certain portions of the planning session.”
The brief says Lemon told his livestream audience before heading to the church: “We’re going to head to the operation. Again, we’re not going to give any, any of the information away.”
These are the government’s allegations. Lemon’s and Fort’s lawyers have argued that both were there as journalists covering a news event.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT
Judge Provinzino has not ruled on the motions. The government’s filings ask the court to deny all of the defense motions to dismiss. The case remains pending in St. Paul.
Sources: U.S. Department of Justice filings in United States v. Levy Armstrong, No. 0:26-cr-00025-LMP-DLM (D. Minn., filed Oct. 16, 2026): Government’s Opposition to Defendant Fort’s Motion to Dismiss Based on the First Amendment (Doc. 893); Government’s Opposition to Joint Motion to Dismiss for Selective and Vindictive Prosecution (Doc. 900); Government’s Consolidated Response to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss for Failure to State an Offense (Doc. 909); Defendant Fort’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 592, filed Aug. 6, 2026), all via CourtListener/RECAP; The Hill (August 2026, on Lemon’s vindictive-prosecution motion). Cover photo: Warren E. Burger Federal Building, St. Paul, by Chad Davis, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons. In-post image background: Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building, by APK, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.
Comments