The Department of Justice (DOJ) is currently investigating the activities of Don Lemon, who was present at a protest at Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota. The event has raised questions regarding civil rights violations and the extent to which journalists can engage in activism. On Monday, the DOJ announced that Lemon could potentially face charges under the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, which aims to protect citizens against conspiratorial actions that infringe upon their legal rights.
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who oversees the Civil Rights Division, revealed that Lemon was aware of the planned events at the church prior to the protest and stated that his role as a journalist would not shield him from legal repercussions. The DOJ is set to pursue charges under the Klan Act, examining whether participants coordinated across state lines or utilized mail and wire services for the protest.
Dhillon emphasized the importance of the Klan Act as a key civil rights law and confirmed that a thorough investigation into the demonstration's coordination—including potential external funding—is underway. The protest was led by activist Nekima Armstrong, who along with a group of anti-ICE demonstrators, targeted the pastor of Cities Church for alleged ties to federal immigration authorities.
During the protest, Lemon was captured on video distributing donuts and coffee to participants and appeared to be orchestrating their actions. He also livestreamed the event on YouTube, defending the disruption as a legitimate expression of First Amendment rights. Nevertheless, federal statutes like the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, which prohibits harassment or intimidation at places of religious assembly, suggest that Lemon's involvement could be deemed illegal.
Legal experts have indicated that participation in a protest with the knowledge that it would disrupt a religious service could fulfill the criteria for civil rights violations, including conspiracy. This viewpoint is echoed by conservative commentators who caution against media personalities becoming deeply embedded with activist groups, potentially leading to unlawful conduct.
Historically, the Klan Act has seen infrequent use in modern times, but it has been employed alongside other statutes, such as the FACE Act, to press conspiracy charges in demonstrations aimed at sensitive locations. This case may indicate a robust enforcement of civil rights protections by federal authorities, even when involving high-profile media figures.
As the investigation into Lemon and the other protestors continues, Dhillon has issued a stern warning to the protest community about the consequences of such actions. The incident has sparked a renewed discussion about the responsibilities of the media, the extent of activism, and the intersection of journalism with partisan protest.
The legal proceedings against Lemon may ultimately establish a precedent regarding the limits of journalistic engagement with activist movements while invoking First Amendment protections.
