Minnesota Church Protest Defendants File Numerous Motions to Contest Indictment

Approximately three dozen protesters accused of interrupting a Minnesota church service this winter to demonstrate against President Trump’s immigration enforcement filed a barrage of motions on Monday, questioning the case’s fairness and the investigative methods employed.

These coordinated motions constitute part of nearly fifty filings submitted Monday in the U.S. District Court for St. Paul, marking the most extensive challenge yet by defense counsel. Other defendants, such as former CNN anchor Don Lemon—a frequent target of the president—have previously contested the indictment, arguing it reflects a politically motivated retaliation effort.

The accusations against Mr. Lemon, civil‑rights attorney Nekima Levy Armstrong, journalist Georgia Fort and others represent one of two high‑profile cases stemming from the nationwide demonstrations against Operation Metro Surge, the administration’s label for its extensive immigration raids in Minnesota. In a related matter, state prosecutors have indicted fifteen individuals for allegedly conspiring to obstruct federal agents during the operation and for affiliating with the antifa movement.

In a Monday filing, defense counsel contended that the church‑protest charges ought to be dismissed outright, asserting that Homeland Security Investigations lacked the legal authority to pursue the allegations that led to the indictment.

Prosecutors allege that the thirty‑eight defendants committed two offenses: a conspiracy to deny the congregation of St. Paul’s Cities Church their rights by disrupting the January 18 Sunday service, and a separate conspiracy to breach the FACE Act, which prohibits using force or threats to intimidate or obstruct individuals accessing reproductive health care or attending worship services.

The protesters gathered at the church after learning that one of its pastors concurrently served as the acting director of the St. Paul ICE office, playing a prominent role in Operation Metro Surge.

Ordinarily, the FBI handles investigations of these statutes, yet it stayed out of this case partly due to turmoil following the resignation of a senior Minneapolis agent after the fatal shooting of Renee Good by a federal immigration officer. Agent Tracee Mergen resigned after Washington‑based FBI officials urged her to halt her probe into the officer responsible for Good’s death and instead pursue any links between Good’s partner and immigration activists.

Beyond challenging Homeland Security Investigations’ role, counsel accused the agency of ‘outrageous government conduct,’ claiming it amassed evidence against the defendants not via conventional routes such as search warrants or grand‑jury subpoenas, but through administrative summonses that bypass judicial approval.

Although administrative summonses are normally reserved for customs inquiries, the lawyers contended that HSI issued more than ninety such summonses to harvest data from cellphone carriers, airlines, social‑media platforms, a rental‑car firm and a state employment agency. In a separate filing last week, defense attorneys disclosed that HSI used one of those summonses to covertly obtain six months of Ms. Fort’s cellphone records.

In another motion, defense counsel argued that prosecutors improperly charged the defendants from the start under an infrequently invoked FACE Act provision that prohibits interfering with individuals inside a house of worship.

Originally crafted to deter anti‑abortion activists from blocking access to clinics—a provision the current Justice Department says the Biden administration misapplied—the law’s house‑of‑worship clause is now being used. Lawyers noted that President Trump, early in his second term, pardoned several individuals charged under the abortion‑related portion, yet his administration continues to pursue the church case via the worship‑center provision.

“By seeking to punish the defendants on the basis of their views,” the lawyers wrote, “the Justice Department initiated a prosecution in a manner that is unequal, oppressive, and has a clear and dangerous chilling effect on the defendants and anyone else who wants to voice their opposition to U.S. government policies.”

The church case has already encountered numerous prosecutorial missteps and continues to draw scrutiny from the presiding judges.

Earlier this month, for example, Judge Laura M. Provinzino, who presides over the case, took the uncommon step of demanding the government turn over the complete grand‑jury transcripts so she could assess whether prosecutors’ presentation contained any improprieties in securing the indictment.

Source link