The Justice Department announced on Monday that it will pursue criminal charges against anti‑ICE protesters who disrupted a Sunday service at a St. Paul, Minnesota, church, with Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon calling the incident a “criminal conspiracy” and threatening federal action. Dhillon’s remarks, delivered on a conservative talk show, came after a video of the protest—captured by former CNN anchor Don Lemon—went viral, sparking a national debate over the limits of protest and the role of the federal government in policing dissent.
Background and Context
In early January, a group of anti‑ICE demonstrators entered the sanctuary of Cities Church in St. Paul to protest the agency’s enforcement tactics. The protest was sparked by the death of Renee Nicole Good, a 27‑year‑old woman who was shot by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer on January 7 in Minneapolis. Good’s killing has become a flashpoint for activists demanding accountability from ICE, and the church protest was one of the most visible expressions of that anger.
Don Lemon, who had recently left CNN, was on the scene to cover the event. His footage showed protesters chanting “ICE out” and “Renee Good” while a pastor asked him to leave the building. The clip quickly circulated on social media, drawing praise from left‑wing outlets and criticism from conservative commentators who accused Lemon of “embellishing” the protest.
Dhillon’s statement comes amid a broader federal push to crack down on what the Justice Department calls “violent and disruptive” protest activity. The agency has already announced investigations into several high‑profile demonstrations, including the January 6 Capitol riot and the recent protests in Minneapolis over Good’s death. The current case is the first time the DOJ has publicly threatened charges against a group of protesters for interrupting a place of worship.
Key Developments
During an interview with conservative influencer Benny Johnson, Dhillon said: “Nobody should think in the United States that they’re going to be able to get away with this.” She specifically called out Lemon, stating that journalism is not a shield from a “criminal conspiracy.” Dhillon added that the DOJ is “putting the facts together” and may invoke the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act and the Enforcement Act of 1871, also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act, to pursue conspiracy charges.
Key points from Dhillon’s remarks include:
- Potential charges under the FACE Act: The law prohibits obstructing access to reproductive health services or religious worship. Dhillon suggested that the protesters’ actions could be interpreted as an attempt to interfere with Christian worship.
- Enforcement Act of 1871: Dhillon noted that the act can be used to prosecute conspiracies that violate civil rights, a reference that has drawn criticism from civil liberties advocates who fear it could be applied to peaceful protest.
- Focus on “criminal conspiracy”: Dhillon emphasized that the protest was not a spontaneous act of civil disobedience but a coordinated effort to disrupt worship.
- Call for federal action: “Everyone in the protest community needs to know that the fullest force of the federal government is going to come down and prevent this from happening,” Dhillon said.
Don Lemon responded to Dhillon’s comments via email, stating that he was “just reporting” and that the framing of him as a participant was misleading. He also highlighted the violent threats he has received online, describing them as “homophobic and racist slurs” amplified by right‑wing media.
In a separate post on X, Dhillon reiterated that the DOJ is investigating potential violations of the FACE Act and that the protest may also be subject to the KKK Act. The post included a link to the text of the FACE Act and a brief explanation of the KKK Act’s historical context.
Impact Analysis
The DOJ’s threat to charge anti‑ICE protesters signals a shift in federal enforcement priorities. For activists, it raises questions about the safety of public demonstrations, especially those that take place in or near places of worship. The legal implications are significant: if the DOJ follows through, it could set a precedent for prosecuting protestors under civil rights statutes traditionally reserved for more overtly violent actions.
From a policy perspective, the move may embolden ICE and other federal agencies to adopt a more aggressive stance against dissent. Critics argue that the DOJ’s approach risks chilling free speech and could deter legitimate protest activity. Supporters, however, contend that the agency is simply enforcing the law and protecting the sanctity of religious spaces.
Statistically, the number of anti‑ICE protests nationwide has surged since Good’s death. According to the Center for American Progress, there were 1,200 anti‑ICE demonstrations in the first two weeks of January, a 35% increase over the same period last year. If the DOJ’s threat leads to prosecutions, it could influence the frequency and scale of future protests.
Expert Insights and Practical Guidance
Legal scholars and civil rights advocates have weighed in on the DOJ’s potential actions. Dr. Maya Patel, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, warned that “the use of the KKK Act in this context could blur the line between legitimate protest and criminal conspiracy.” She added that “the DOJ must be careful to avoid overreach that could undermine First Amendment protections.”
On the ground, protest organizers are advised to:
- Document all activities: Keep detailed records of protest plans, participant lists, and any communications with law enforcement.
- Consult legal counsel: Engage attorneys familiar with civil rights and protest law to assess potential liabilities.
- Coordinate with local authorities: Work with city officials to secure permits and ensure compliance with local ordinances.
- Maintain transparency: Publicly disclose protest objectives and methods to avoid accusations of clandestine activity.
For journalists covering protests, the DOJ’s statements underscore the importance of clear reporting. “Journalists are not participants,” Dhillon said, but the line can be blurry when reporters are embedded with protest groups. Media outlets should emphasize the distinction between coverage and participation to avoid legal complications.
Looking Ahead
The DOJ’s next steps remain unclear. While Dhillon has not confirmed whether charges will be filed against specific individuals, the agency has indicated that it is “putting the facts together.” If the DOJ proceeds, the first case could be filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, where the protest took place.
President Trump, who has repeatedly expressed support for ICE, has not yet commented on the DOJ’s threat. However, his administration has signaled a willingness to use federal resources to support ICE operations, including the deployment of National Guard troops to Minneapolis in response to the protests. The potential invocation of the Insurrection Act remains a looming possibility, though Trump has stated that he may not need to use it.
In the broader context, the DOJ’s stance may influence future policy debates over immigration enforcement and protest rights. If the agency successfully prosecutes anti‑ICE protesters, it could embolden ICE to intensify its operations, potentially leading to more confrontations. Conversely, a high-profile legal battle could galvanize civil rights groups to push for reforms in both immigration policy and protest law.
For now, the legal community watches closely as the DOJ prepares to move forward. Protest organizers, journalists, and civil rights advocates alike are bracing for the implications of a federal crackdown on anti‑ICE demonstrations.
Reach out to us for personalized consultation based on your specific requirements.
