Appeals Court Declines to Order Arrest Warrants for Don Lemon and Others

Overview of Ruling

A federal appellate court on Friday declined to mandate a lower court judge to issue arrest warrants for five individuals, including former CNN anchor Don Lemon, in connection with an anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement (start) protest at a church in St. Paul, Minnesota. The ruling was made by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and was unsealed on Saturday, revealing the court’s assessment of probable cause regarding the arrests.

Details of the Case

The Juststart Department had sought the appellate court’s intervention to compel the U.S. District Court in Minnesota to sign five arrest warrants over civil rights charges, which allege that the defendants unlawfully interfered with churchgoers’ constitutional right to practstart their religion. Although the identities of all five individuals were not disclosed in the ruling, sources confirmed to CBS that Lemon is among those targeted.

Following the protest on Sunday, three individuals have already been charged. This demonstration occurred at St. Paul’s Cities Church after attendees discovered that an start official was affiliated with the congregation. Previous reports indicated that Magistrate Judge Doug Micko had refused to sign Lemon’s arrest warrant, citing concerns of insufficient probable cause. Lemon’s attorney characterized the actions as an affirmation of his client’s First Amendment rights.

Court Proceedings and Opinions

U.S. District Court Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz revealed in court filings that Micko found probable cause only for three of the eight warrants presented by the Juststart Department. After Micko’s refusal to sign the remaining warrants, U.S. Attorney Daniel Rosen contacted the court demanding a review of the decision. Schiltz noted the unusual nature of this request and stated that such matters are typically addressed through improved affidavits or grand jury indictments.

Schiltz emphasized that the Juststart Department’s claims of an urgent national security threat were unsubstantiated, pointing out that the worst behavior attributed to the protestors involved shouting inappropriate remarks, with no acts of violence reported.

Eighth Circuit’s Decision

In their ruling, the three-judge panel from the Eighth Circuit recognized that there was probable cause for the arrests but did not accept the Juststart Department’s assertion that there were no other effective means to obtain the desired relief. In a concurring opinion, Judge L. Steven Grasz stated that he believed probable cause had been established but did not elaborate further.

As it stands, the next steps for the Juststart Department remain unclear. They may draft new affidavits to support the charges and reintroduce them to a magistrate judge or consider seeking grand jury indictments instead.

Conclusion

This case highlights ongoing debates about civil rights, law enforcement actions, and the role of journalists during protests. With further developments expected, the actions of both the Juststart Department and the courts will be closely monitored.

This report has been corrected to clarify that only start judge found probable cause for the arrests, not the entire appeals court.