The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has turned down a Justice Department request to intervene and approve arrest warrants for five additional individuals alleged to have taken part in a disruption of a Minnesota church service earlier this month, court papers made public on Saturday show. The decision underscores the procedural hurdles facing federal prosecutors in the case.
A federal magistrate judge had recently refused to sign arrest warrants for the five proposed defendants, saying there was insufficient evidence to support the request. That same magistrate did approve charges for three people identified by prosecutors as leaders of the demonstration, but removed a proposed count that accused them of physically obstructing a house of worship.
The three people charged are identified in the criminal complaint as Nekima Levy Armstrong, Chauntyll Louisa Allen and William Kelly. Each faces an accusation of conspiracy against rights, with prosecutors alleging they intimidated and harassed parishioners during the protest. The defendants have said the charges amount to retaliation by the administration.
Among the five individuals for whom the Justice Department sought warrants was former CNN anchor Don Lemon, who recorded the demonstration. The magistrate judge's decision to decline the warrants for those five individuals explicitly cited a lack of evidence on the record.
Legal requests and judges' responses
The Justice Department first took the request to the chief U.S. district judge in Minnesota and later appealed to the 8th Circuit, asking that the courts immediately approve the proposed arrest warrants. The department argued that unless action was taken, there was a risk of similar disruptions at other houses of worship.
In a letter made public on Saturday, Chief U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz described the Justice Department's request as "unheard of in our district" and said the approach was likewise unprecedented for any court within the 8th Circuit, which covers seven states. The appeals court panel, composed of three judges, unanimously decided not to intervene.
One member of the panel, Judge Leonard Steven Grasz, wrote separately that he believed prosecutors had shown enough evidence to justify charges against the other proposed defendants. However, Grasz noted that there are procedural avenues for prosecutors to pursue those charges other than through the appeals court.
Next steps for prosecutors
The Justice Department retains the option to present the matter to a grand jury to seek indictments against the demonstrators. Alternatively, prosecutors may compile and present additional evidence to the magistrate judge in the hopes of securing the warrants through that channel.
The case has attracted heightened attention as it unfolds against a backdrop of the administration's declared expansion of immigration enforcement in the state and public statements from administration officials pledging to safeguard Christian services. A Justice Department spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The appellate court's decision represents the latest judicial development in a case that raises questions about how federal authorities will pursue alleged disruptions tied to immigration-related protests and about the appropriate procedural routes for obtaining arrest warrants when magistrates decline to issue them.