Did Don Lemon Overlook a Critical Piece of Evidence? Harmeet Dhillon Says the Case Hinges on What the Camera Captured
A federal case unfolding in Minnesota has quietly become one of the most consequential legal tests of protest, press freedom, and religious liberty in recent years. At its center is Don Lemon, the former CNN anchor turned independent media figure—now one of several individuals indicted following a disruptive incident at a Sunday church service.
The controversy escalated after Harmeet Dhillon, serving in a senior role within the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, publicly outlined what she described as overlooked evidence—including livestream footage—that prosecutors say documents planning, coordination, and conduct inside the church.
The question now facing the courts is not simply whether laws were broken, but where the line is drawn between documenting an event and participating in it—and whether a livestream can become evidence of intent.
The Case in Focus: Cities Church, St. Paul
Prosecutors emphasize that the case is not about one person, but about a coordinated action involving multiple individuals during a January worship service at Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota.
According to court filings and statements made by Dhillon, the incident involved:
A group entering the church during services
Congregants reportedly obstructed from moving freely
Disruption that caused fear and, in some instances, physical injury
Parents allegedly blocked from reaching children in Sunday school
A chaotic exit as hundreds attempted to leave the sanctuary
Authorities stress that the legal focus is on conduct, not ideology.
“This is not the ‘Don Lemon case,’” Dhillon said in a detailed interview. “It’s the Cities Church case. Mr. Lemon is one of several indicted individuals.”
The Laws at Issue: FACE Act and the Ku Klux Klan Act
Two federal statutes form the backbone of the prosecution’s theory:
The FACE Act (1994)
Originally passed to prevent obstruction and intimidation at abortion clinics, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act includes explicit bipartisan language extending protections to houses of worship.
Under the law, it is illegal to use force, threats, or physical obstruction to interfere with religious exercise.
The Ku Klux Klan Act (1871)
One of the oldest civil rights statutes in the U.S., the Act makes it a felony for two or more people to conspire to deprive others of constitutional rights—including religious freedom.
Prosecutors argue that when FACE Act violations are combined with planning and conspiracy, felony exposure becomes possible.
Dhillon noted that prior administrations used the same legal framework—often against peaceful protesters—to justify prosecutions.
The Evidence Under Scrutiny: “The Livestream”
What has intensified attention on the case is video evidence—some of it recorded and broadcast by Lemon himself.
According to prosecutors:
The livestream shows individuals meeting beforehand
Lemon is allegedly heard using collective language (“we’re going to…”) when discussing entry into the church
At one point, the microphone is turned off during a discussion prosecutors describe as planning
Donuts and coffee are allegedly brought to participants before the action
Inside the church, the footage shows Lemon blocking at least one person while conducting an interview
Authorities argue the footage supports premeditation, not spontaneous reporting.
Defense advocates counter that livestreaming is a common journalistic practice and that turning off audio does not prove criminal intent.
That dispute—what the video means—is likely to be central at trial.
The Journalism Defense: Does the First Amendment Apply Here?
Lemon’s supporters argue he was acting as a journalist—observing, recording, and reporting on a protest involving a public policy issue.
Dhillon sharply rejects the notion that the First Amendment provides blanket immunity.
“The First Amendment is not a license to violate someone else’s First Amendment rights,” she said. “Time, place, and manner restrictions exist for a reason.”
She posed a hypothetical that has resonated widely online:
“If a group calling themselves journalists stormed a synagogue or a mosque during prayer, would we accept ‘I was reporting’ as a defense?”
The DOJ’s position, as articulated by Dhillon, is that journalism status does not override conduct laws, particularly where obstruction or intimidation is alleged.
Optics vs. Law: The ‘Martyrdom’ Question
Some critics worry that prosecuting a high-profile media figure could backfire, turning Lemon into a symbol of government overreach.
Dhillon acknowledged the concern—but argued the alternative would be worse.
“If everyone can put on a press badge and disrupt houses of worship, we’ve lost the ability to worship safely,” she said. “That’s the slippery slope.”
Prosecutors emphasize that not acting would signal that certain spaces—churches, synagogues, mosques—are fair game for political action.
A Broader Pattern: Protests and Selective Enforcement
The case has reignited a national conversation about protest culture and enforcement disparities.
Dhillon and others argue that in many major cities:
Streets are routinely blocked without permits
Commerce and emergency access are disrupted
Enforcement varies depending on cause or ideology
She described the phenomenon as a “one-way ratchet,” where some protests are tolerated while others face immediate consequences.
This context matters, legal analysts say, because courts will be asked whether equal enforcement exists—and whether this prosecution aligns with or departs from precedent.
Public Reaction: Deeply Divided
Reaction to the case has fractured along familiar lines:
Civil liberties advocates warn of chilling effects on press freedom
Religious freedom groups argue houses of worship must be protected absolutely
Legal scholars note the case could set precedent for livestreamed activism
Media critics say the episode blurs lines between reporting and participation
What’s unusual is that criticism and concern are coming from across the political spectrum, not just one side.
What Happens Next
The defendants, including Lemon, are entitled to due process and are presumed innocent.
Key questions the court will weigh include:
Does livestreaming constitute participation?
Does pre-event coordination equal conspiracy?
Can journalistic intent negate otherwise unlawful conduct?
How should the FACE Act be applied to worship spaces today?
The answers could shape future protest coverage nationwide.
Why This Case Matters Beyond One Defendant
Regardless of outcome, legal experts say the case will influence:
How journalists cover protests
How activists use livestreaming
How churches and religious institutions assess security
How courts interpret intent in the digital age
“This is about whether sacred spaces remain protected,” Dhillon said, “or whether they become the next frontier for political confrontation.”
