The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has denied the Justice Department's effort to secure immediate approval of arrest warrants for five additional individuals accused of disrupting a church service in Minnesota, court records made public on Saturday show. The decision represents a notable judicial rebuff to prosecutors seeking to broaden criminal proceedings related to the demonstration.
Federal judges on the three-judge appeals panel unanimously opted not to intervene in the lower court magistrate's decision. That magistrate had earlier declined to authorize arrest warrants for five proposed defendants, including a high-profile former television anchor who recorded the incident, citing a lack of evidence to support immediate charges.
At the same time, a federal magistrate judge did approve charges against three people identified as leaders of the demonstration, but removed a proposed count that had accused them of physically obstructing a house of worship. Those three defendants - named in the criminal complaint as Nekima Levy Armstrong, Chauntyll Louisa Allen and William Kelly - face conspiracy against rights charges alleging they intimidated and harassed parishioners.
The case has attracted attention because it intersects with broader federal immigration enforcement priorities in the state and public assurances from administration officials that they will safeguard Christian services. The Justice Department's bid to obtain warrants for the five other proposed defendants was advanced first to the chief trial judge and then to the appeals court on the grounds that failing to approve the warrants could leave open the risk of additional disruptions to religious services.
Chief U.S. District Court Judge Patrick Schiltz, whose letter responding to the department's request was made public on Saturday, characterized the move as "unheard of in our district" and suggested it would be similarly unprecedented across the seven states within the 8th Circuit's jurisdiction.
One member of the appeals panel, Judge Leonard Steven Grasz, wrote separately that he believed prosecutors had presented sufficient evidence to warrant charges against the other proposed defendants. Nonetheless, he concurred with the panel's conclusion that the appeals court was not the proper venue to secure the warrants and noted that prosecutors have alternative mechanisms to seek them.
The Justice Department retains options. It can present the matter to a grand jury to seek indictments or return to the magistrate judge with additional evidence to support arrest warrants. A Justice Department spokesperson did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the appeals court ruling.
The three defendants who were charged maintain that the prosecution represents retaliation for their protest activity. The criminal complaint alleges that the three conspired against the civil rights of worshippers by intimidating and harassing them during the Sunday demonstration, which targeted the apparent connection between the church's pastor and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
While the appeals court's refusal halts the department's immediate plan to expand the set of charged individuals, it leaves open the prospect of further federal action through grand jury proceedings or renewed applications to the magistrate judge. The series of judicial decisions highlights both procedural constraints and contested assessments of evidentiary sufficiency as prosecutors press forward with a politically sensitive enforcement effort.
Key background points
- The appeals court denied the Justice Department's request to approve arrest warrants for five additional proposed defendants connected to a Minnesota church demonstration.
- A federal magistrate judge approved charges against three alleged leaders but rejected a proposed obstruction charge and declined to issue warrants for the five others, citing insufficient evidence.
- Prosecutors may still seek grand jury indictments or return to the magistrate with additional evidence; the department's request drew sharper criticism from the chief U.S. District Court judge as "unheard of" in the district.
Legal and market implications
- The dispute centers on evidentiary standards and appropriate procedural channels for federal charging decisions, with implications for how aggressively prosecutors can seek expedited warrants in politically sensitive matters.
- Sectors most directly affected include legal services and civil rights litigation; media attention around the matter also touches news organizations and public affairs consulting.
Risks and uncertainties
- Prosecutorial risk: The Justice Department can still pursue grand jury indictments or submit further evidence to the magistrate judge, which could lead to new charges despite the appeals court's refusal - impacting individuals named in the investigation and legal counsel resources.
- Procedural uncertainty: Judges differ in their assessment of sufficient evidence, creating unpredictability in outcomes and potential further litigation over appropriate charging mechanisms.