Anti-ICE protesters seek dismissal of federal charges tied to St. Paul church demonstration

Sarah Nelson, The Minnesota Star Tribune on Jun 24, 2026

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

MINNEAPOLIS — Several protesters involved in a January anti-ICE demonstration at a St. Paul church service asked a judge to dismiss their federal charges, arguing that their protest did not amount to a violation of the laws they’re charged with breaking.

Lawyers on behalf of 33 of the protesters, including activist Nekima Levy Armstrong, argued in a joint court filing on Wednesday that the demonstration as described in the federal indictment does not rise to the level of crimes alleged against them by the Justice Department.

“Nowhere in those 19 pages does the indictment allege a single fact that any defendant used physical force against another person, issued a threat of violence to anyone, or fully blocked ingress to or egress from the church, as is required by the charged statutes,” the motion said.

The Justice Department charged the protesters with conspiring against the right of religious freedom and violating the FACE Act, which typically protects houses of worship, in connection with the demonstration at Cities Church in St. Paul on Jan. 18. Among those charged were former CNN anchor Don Lemon and independent Twin Cities journalist Georgia Fort. The protest was convened after organizers determined one of the pastors, David Easterwood, was the acting director of ICE’s field office in St. Paul. at the church.

The motion to dismiss is the latest chapter in a criminal investigation that’s seen a number of missteps since the start. A magistrate judge in February first refused to sign off on five search warrants in the case, saying they did not meet basic legal standards. After the refusal, the U.S. Attorney’s Office asked for a review of the decision — a matter that was assigned to Minnesota’s chief federal judge, Patrick Schiltz.

Schiltz called the request to review as “unheard of in our district” in a Jan. 23 letter to the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals. In the letter, Schiltz said the federal government issued a writ of mandamus, ordering the court to act, without alerting anyone. Schiltz said he did not have access to any of the government documents because the case had been sealed per the government’s request and he now had “2 ½ hours to respond.” One week later, Both Lemon and Fort were charged through a grand jury indictment.

An apparent case of mistaken identity in the case also also led to the U.S. government dismissing charges against one of the defendants, whose attorney said did not attend the protest.

In late May, Lemon’s legal team asked the court to unseal the grand jury transcripts in his case, arguing recent examples of misconduct by the Justice Department warranted the move. Magistrate Judge Douglas Micko denied the request.

The remaining 38 protesters have pleaded not guilty to their federal charges. The St. Paul City Attorney’s Office declined to file charges tied to the demonstration, saying they did not have sufficient evidence to pursue a case.

In Wednesday’s filing, the protesters disputed the U.S. government’s interpretation of the FACE Act violations in their case.

“It is clear that the intent behind the defendants’ actions was to protest ICE policies — not to harm church members or intimidate them in their exercise of religion,” the motion said.

In asking the court to dismiss the charges, the protesters said allowing the case to go to trial would bring “extraordinary expense and emotional strain,” while also being a “terrible waste of resources.”