Guest post by Richard Luthmann
No Sanctuary For Don Lemon: Church arrest tests a conduct-based rule courts applied to Jan. 6: Unauthorized entry is the crime.
(LUTHMANN NOTE: This case strips away the theater and leaves only the law. Don Lemon did not get arrested for his opinions. He got arrested for where he went and what he did. Unauthorized entry is the offense. Full stop. That is the same rule applied to Owen Shroyer after January 6. Different politics. Different building. Same conduct. Shroyer never entered the Capitol, yet he served 60 days in federal prison because he crossed a restricted line. Lemon allegedly crossed one too, inside a private church during worship. Equal justice means equal consequences. If the law still means anything, Lemon should face the same sentence. No sanctuary. No carve-outs. No special rules. This piece is “No Sanctuary For Don Lemon.”)
Federal agents hauled Don Lemon into custody over his involvement in a Jan. 18 protest inside a St. Paul house of worship. Authorities say the former CNN star joined a pack of anti-ICE activists who stormed Cities Church during a Sunday service, disrupting shocked congregants mid-prayer.
United States Attorney General Pam Bondi took credit for the pre-dawn raid, announcing that she ordered Lemon’s arrest along with three others “in connection with the coordinated attack on Cities Church in St. Paul.” Agents nabbed Lemon in Los Angeles on Jan. 29 while he was covering an awards event, and charged him with conspiracy against rights and violating the FACE Act – federal civil-rights offenses that carry serious penalties.
Lemon insists he was acting as a journalist, livestreaming the protest rather than participating in it. Video from that day shows him broadcasting as protesters shouted down the pastor.
“They’ve stopped the service — a lot of people have left,” Lemon reported bluntly amid the chaos.
At one point, he rushed up to the altar and confronted a minister about the First Amendment as parishioners looked on in alarm. Bondi and church leaders were not swayed.
“The First Amendment does not allow premeditated plots or coordinated actions to violate the sanctity of a sanctuary, disrupt worship, and intimidate small children,” said Renee Carlson, an attorney for Cities Church, defending the crackdown.
Lemon’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell, blasted the arrest as “a stunning and troubling effort to silence and punish a journalist for doing his job.” He called the federal move “an unprecedented attack on the First Amendment” and a transparent ploy to distract from the administration’s own crises.
Lowell vowed that Lemon would fight the charges vigorously in court. Still, for now, the outspoken newsman finds himself in the same legal hot water as a Jan. 6 rioter – with prosecutors treating a church invasion no differently than a Capitol breach.
No Sanctuary For Don Lemon: InfoWars Host Previously Jailed for Capitol Trespass
Lemon’s predicament closely parallels the case of Owen Shroyer, an InfoWars host who was prosecuted for unlawful entry stemming from the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol protest. Shroyer marched to the U.S. Capitol that day. He never actually went inside the Capitol itself.
With a megaphone in hand, Shriyer cheered “USA!” as Democrat lawmakers hid.
Federal prosecutors later charged Shroyer with illegally entering a restricted area, a misdemeanor offense for knowingly trespassing on prohibited grounds. He pleaded guilty to that charge, admitting he had no lawful authority to be in the secured zone during the riot.
A D.C. judge ultimately sentenced Shroyer to 60 days in jail.
Throughout his case, Shroyer tried to wrap himself in the First Amendment – much like Lemon is doing now. Defense attorney Norm Pattis argued that Shroyer went to Washington as a journalist and protester, simply to “cover the event” and speak out against the government.
“The First Amendment permits and protects the rights of individuals to assemble and engage in demonstrations … even when those demonstrations become rowdy or unruly,” Pattis wrote in a court filing.
Shroyer himself claimed he was being punished for his opinions, fuming on social media that “You can be arrested & sentenced for legal & lawful speech… Speak out against government & risk arrest.”
But the courts flatly rejected Shroyer’s free-speech defense. Prosecutors emphasized that the charges were about his actions, not his politics or rhetoric.
The First Amendment “doesn’t protect the conduct for which Shroyer was charged,” government lawyers wrote, noting that calling oneself a journalist “does not immunize” anyone from prosecution for breaking the law.
A federal judge agreed that Shroyer’s loud chants and presence atop restricted Capitol grounds crossed a clear legal line.
Even the nation’s highest court refused to intervene: in 2024, the Supreme Court declined to hear Shroyer’s appeal, leaving his conviction intact.
The message from the judiciary was unmistakable – unlawful entry is unlawful entry, no matter one’s purported cause.
No Sanctuary For Don Lemon: Law Focuses on Acts, Not Beliefs
The twin sagas of Don Lemon and Owen Shroyer underscore a bombshell point: in the eyes of the law, trespass is trespass. When prosecutors apply these statutes neutrally, a left-wing activist storming a church is on the same legal footing as a right-wing agitator breaching government grounds. The offense turns on unauthorized presence and disruptive conduct, not on ideology or venue.
In both cases, authorities invoked content-neutral laws that forbid anyone from “knowingly” entering or remaining in places where they have no right to be. Whether it’s a holy sanctuary or the halls of Congress, the rule is the same: cross the line without permission, and you’ve committed a crime.
Both Lemon and Shroyer have loudly invoked the First Amendment in their defenses, claiming to be crusading journalists or passionate protesters exercising fundamental rights. But J6 and the Biden DOJ set the precedent: free speech is not a license to trespass. The Constitution does not shield someone who bursts into a church to interfere with worship, just as it doesn’t excuse someone who “invades” a “restricted government zone” to “disrupt official proceedings.”
“The First Amendment does not allow’ coordinated assaults on a church service, a lawyer for the Minnesota church noted pointedly.
Likewise, federal prosecutors in Shroyer’s case made clear that freedom of the press is no get-out-of-jail-free card for unlawful behavior. The law draws a bright line at conduct: speech and beliefs may be protected, but crossing into forbidden territory and causing havoc is not.
Legal experts say trespass and public order laws are written to apply blindly, without political favor. That principle appears to be playing out now. A prominent liberal media figure stands accused under the same basic premise as a conservative firebrand before him.
The venues and causes could not be more different – a protest during a church service versus a claimed riot at the Capitol – yet the charges are strikingly similar in their core allegations. Both men are accused of knowingly and without authorization violating clearly marked boundaries and inciting chaos in the process. Each case serves as a vivid reminder that blind justice cares only about what a defendant did, not why.
However, the case can and should be made that Don Lemon’s actions are far worse than Shroyer’s, mandating a much harsher punishment. Lemon’s actions are a fundamental assault on religion and the free exercise thereof. The common law command to defend holy soil has biblical roots. 1 Corinthians 3:17: “If anybody should destroy the temple of God, God will destroy that person, because God’s temple is holy; and you are that temple.”
Owen Shroyer did not set foot inside the “People’s House.” Don Lemon and others were part and parcel to the disruption, chaos, and terror of those freely worshipping – and they saw nothing wrong with it. They claim they are justified. Don Lemon entered God’s house with unholy intentions, and our laws provide a clear sanction.
Don Lemon’s upcoming legal battle will test the law. But if the law is applied as written, his alleged house-of-worship intrusion will be judged on its conduct – just as Owen Shroyer’s Capitol trespass was – with no sanctuary given based on politics.
