Feds Arrest Journalist Don Lemon in Church Protest Case

A lot has happened. Here are some of the things. This is the TPM Morning Memo.

The judge already said there was no evidence of a crime

Reporter Don Lemon was covering a Grammy event in Los Angeles last night (pictured above) when he was arrested on federal charges related to the ICE church protest he covered in St. Paul on Jan. 18, his attorney said. The church was a target of protesters because one of its pastors also works as the acting director of ICE’s St. Paul field office.

The new, unspecified charges against the former CNN anchor come after a federal judge in Minnesota already dismissed an arrest warrant for Lemon. Of the eight defendants initially targeted, including six demonstrators as well as Lemon and his producer, the magistrate only approved three arrest warrants.

The Trump Justice Department then filed an emergency appeal to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, aiming to force the district’s chief judge to overturn the magistrate’s decision. The appeals court last week refused to do so.

During the rapid appeal, the chief judge dismissed the criminal charges against Lemon and his producer out of hand, writing in an extraordinary letter to the appeals court:

The government rounds up the eight protesters and says things that are true for some of them, but not for all of them. Two of the five protesters were not protesters at all; instead, they were a reporter and his producer. There is no evidence that these two men engaged in criminal conduct or conspired to do so.

News of Lemon’s arrest Thursday evening was announced Friday morning after his attorney, Father Lowell, released a statement:

“This unprecedented attack on the First Amendment and this transparent attempt to distract from the many crises facing this administration will not stand. Don will fight these charges vigorously and completely in court.”

Attorney General Pam Bondi later confirmed the arrest of Lemon and three others – Trahern Jeen Crews, Georgia Fort and Jamael Lydell Lundy – in an article on X, accusing them of a “coordinated attack” on the church.

It is unclear which federal agency arrested Lemon, who was scheduled to appear in federal court in Los Angeles this morning, The New York Times reported.

Judges slam Trump DOJ conduct

In addition to his unusually candid exchanges with the appeals court in the Lemon case, you’ve probably seen that U.S. District Judge Patrick J. Schiltz, chief judge for the District of Minnesota, also blasted ICE this week for defying 96 court orders in 78 cases since Jan. 1 in that state alone.

Schiltz wasn’t the only one. In two other cases this week in different states, federal judges criticized Trump’s DOJ for its conduct in immigration detention cases.

The problem lies with the Trump administration’s mandatory detention policy, a new, unilateral interpretation of federal law implemented last year. Justices across the country have rejected the administration’s interpretation en masse, but some of them have also been deeply troubled by how the Justice Department continues to make the same argument without acknowledging the many losses.

Here is U.S. District Judge Roy Dalton of the Middle District of Florida, who was so infuriated that he ordered the U.S. Attorney and Assistant U.S. Attorney in charge of this case to show reasons why they should not be punished for their conduct:

If the government wants to argue for an expansive interpretation of a law or maintain a widely rejected position to preserve its appeal rights, it can do so. But its lawyers must present these arguments in a manner consistent with their professional obligations, as they have done since time immemorial: cite compelling authority to the contrary and explain why it is false. Don’t hide the ball. Don’t ignore the crushing weight of persuasive authority as if it’s nowhere to be found. And don’t send a sacrificial lamb to show up before this Court with a handful of cases that don’t apply and no compelling argument for why they should.

The other related problem is that the Justice Department seems overwhelmed by the large number of detention cases, unable to keep up and therefore coming to court with little information or facts about the cases. That prompted this scathing assessment from U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin of the Southern District of West Virginia:

The Government did not present any witnesses. He did not present any affidavit. He presented no testimony. The government put no one on the stand: not an arresting officer, not an immigration officer, not a guard, not a decision maker. She did not offer a warrant of any kind or provide evidence that a warrant had been requested or obtained. …Fundamental questions about the petitioner’s detention also remained unanswered. When asked who ordered the stop, why the vehicle was stopped, what legal authority was invoked, what facts were known at the time, what statements were made, what notice was given, what procedure was available and when a hearing would be held; the government repeatedly responded, “I don’t know.” …

Here, the government presented no evidence. This was not a technical failure. It was complete.

In both cases, the detainees were released.

Big Lie Never Ends: Georgia Edition

Two of the big questions arising from the FBI’s seizure of Fulton County’s 2020 voting records are partially, albeit unsatisfactorily, answered:

• Why did the U.S. Attorney in St. Louis sign a search warrant in Atlanta? Thomas Albus received a special appointment from Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate what the right cleverly calls “election integrity” cases nationwide, according to Bloomberg.
• Why on earth was DNI Tulsi Gabbard present during the FBI raid of the Fulton County voting center? Gabbard is leading the administration’s efforts to restart the 2020 election and search for potential crimes, the WSJ reports, all part of a larger campaign of retaliation by President Trump for losing his re-election bid. It also appears to be part of a preemptive effort to craft executive orders ahead of this year’s midterm elections:

[Gabbard] has regularly briefed Trump and chief of staff Susie Wiles about his investigation over the past several months, as well as others involved in the probe. They include senior Justice Department officials, Trump’s outside ally and attorney Cleta Mitchell, and Kurt Olsen, a lawyer who argued in 2020 that the election was stolen and joined the administration as a special government employee. …

She is expected to prepare a report on her work, the sources said. The administration discussed executive orders on voting before the midterm elections, two of the officials said.

Stay tuned.

Thanks for coming last night!

Many thanks to everyone who joined us last night in Washington, despite the freezing weather and stubborn ice, for the first Morning Memo Live event. Huge props to the reader who came all the way from Newport News, Virginia, for our discussion on the politicization of the Justice Department.

I am indebted to our fantastic panelists, who all brought their A-game: Stacey Young, Kyle Freeny and Anna Bower were knowledgeable, witty, self-effacing and very engaging.

At one point, the Q&A veered into the question of hope versus optimism, and Kyle took this quote from Václav Havel as a guide for our current predicament:

Hope is certainly not the same thing as optimism. It’s not about the belief that something will turn out well, but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out.

Amen.

Any hot tips? A juicy scuttlebutt? Any interesting ideas? Let me know. For sensitive information, use encrypted methods here.