Full Breakdown
St. Paul Prosecutor Declines State Charges for Anti-ICE Protesters Who Disrupted Cities Church
6/5/2026, 2:35:34 AM
Background & Context
On Jan. 18, 2024, a group of anti-ICE demonstrators entered Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, chanting “ICE out” and “Justice for Renee Good,” a mother killed by an ICE agent in Minneapolis. Protesters said the church’s pastor also served as an ICE field-office director, prompting the disruption.
Core Event: Decision Not to Pursue State Charges
On a Wednesday in June 2026, St. Paul City Attorney Irene Kao announced that the city would not file criminal charges under Minnesota law against the demonstrators. Kao cited “insufficient evidence” to meet the statutory standard for prosecution, noting the absence of violence, property damage, or threats to public safety.
Key Figures & Groups
- Irene Kao – St. Paul City Attorney who issued the decision.
- Jonathan Parnell – Lead pastor of Cities Church, vocal critic of the ruling.
- Don Lemon – Former CNN anchor who livestreamed the protest and is among those federally indicted.
- Department of Justice (DOJ) – Brought federal civil-rights charges under the FACE Act.
- Nekima Levy Armstrong – Protester identified as a ringleader, facing federal indictment.
- Cities Church – The Minnesota congregation whose service was interrupted.
Data & Statistics
- 39 individuals have been federally charged with civil-rights violations tied to the Jan. 18 incident.
- Four states—Idaho, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Kansas—adopted laws this year criminalizing the disruption of worship services.
Official Statements & Responses
Kao’s office emphasized that the decision “should not be interpreted as an endorsement of unlawful behavior or public disorder” and reiterated the city’s duty to balance the right to peaceful protest with the right to religious exercise. The DOJ’s indictment alleges violations of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances & Places of Religious Worship Act (FACE Act), asserting that the protesters used force, threats, or obstruction to interfere with worship. Attorneys for Cities Church argued that the lack of property damage does not excuse a breach of state law protecting congregants’ undisturbed worship.
Criticism & Opposition
Parnell condemned the ruling, asserting that it treats the “invasion of a mosque, cathedral, or temple” as protected protest and fails to hold participants accountable for disrupting worship. Church counsel from True North Legal echoed this view, stating that the right to worship “must not be subordinated to protest activity.”
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
Sources differ on the exact number of federal defendants, with some reporting “more than 30” and others specifying “39.” No source provides the specific Minnesota statutes considered for state prosecution, nor detailed evidence the city reviewed. The outcome of the federal cases remains pending.
Why It Matters / Impact
The decision highlights a tension between First Amendment protections for protest and statutory safeguards for religious freedom. By declining state charges while federal indictments proceed, St. Paul sets a precedent that may influence how jurisdictions address future disruptions of worship services, especially when protests target officials linked to law-enforcement agencies.
Verbatim Quotes
- “This decision should not be interpreted as an endorsement of unlawful behavior or public disorder,” — Irene Kao, St. Paul City Attorney
- “The right to peacefully protest is protected, as is the right to exercise one’s religious beliefs. Balancing these equally important rights is paramount to our decision today.” — Irene Kao, statement
- “According to the St. Paul City Attorney’s logic, it is perfectly fine for agitators to invade a mosque, a cathedral, or a temple, intimidate the families and children inside, and shut down their religious gathering. Just call it a ‘protest,’” — Jonathan Parnell, lead pastor, Cities Church
- “They’re planning an operation we’re going to follow them on. I can’t tell you exactly what they’re doing, but it’s called Operation Pull-Up,” — Don Lemon, livestream commentary
What’s Next
The federal FACE-Act cases against the 39 defendants, including Lemon and Armstrong, are scheduled for arraignment later in 2026. Legal scholars anticipate further challenges concerning the balance of protest rights and religious-worship protections, potentially prompting legislative review in Minnesota and other states.
