Time for another patented Aaron WalkerTM Deep Dive, so be ready for a long discussion of the law, the First Amendment and how it applies to Lemon’s behavior.
Earlier today, we reported that Don Lemon had been indicted in relation to the invasion of a church on January 18, 2026 and even his lawyer’s lame statement in response to that indictment. Seriously, a pro-tip for attorney Abbe Lowell: If you want your statement to be taken seriously, don’t actually lie in it when everyone can see the truth in video (he claimed ICE had shot two peaceful protesters—they were not peaceful). We have even reported on the arrest of another church invader from the same incident, here.
But we have been anxious to read the indictment itself. As we wrote this morning:
Third, we do tend to think that if the charge amounts to merely observing what these church invaders did, even if he knew ahead of time what they were going to do, then the charge would be unjust under the First Amendment. But if they allege that he participated in the invasion of this church—including participating in the planning of this invasion of the church—then the charge is just. People have a right to film public and newsworthy events, but only so long as they act as an observer, not a participant. We are sure we will see the charges soon, and we can judge at that time which side of the legal line his conduct fell on[.]
First, we absolutely do not subscribe to the claim that journalists are a special class of people who are above the law. What we say applies to every citizen. Every citizen is allowed to stand in a place they are legally entitled to be at and record public and/or newsworthy events and even live stream them.
Furthermore, there is typically no duty to report to authorities that a crime occurred, is being planned or that a person is in danger unless there is some kind of special legal relationship. So, for instance, if you see a stranger drowning a pool you are typically not obligated to jump in and help that person, or even to call 911. That might change if you have a relationship, such as if you are a lifeguard or that person’s family, but the default is there is no such duty.
Of course, doing such a thing is evil in this author’s opinion, but the law does not always mandate that you do the right thing. (Certainly, you are intelligent enough to know this should not be considered legal advice and you should check your local laws because you never know when an exception might apply.)
That adds up to Don Lemon—or really, any person—being typically allowed to observe even criminal conduct and report on it. He is even allowed to record and broadcast it. And if he knows ahead of time these people intend to engage in criminal conduct, he doesn’t typically have a duty to even report that intention to the police, let alone take any steps to stop it. It might have been wise for Lemon to call the police just to make it clear that he is not part of the conspiracy, just an observer because if he had done so he probably would not have even been investigated let alone indicted. But what is wise is not always the same as what you are required to do. Lemon had a right to remain silent, if you will.
Thus, typically, he can very passively observe, but not participate—and by 'no participate,' we mean that he can’t help plan the action, either.
So, with all that in mind, let’s turn to the indictment, which you can read here:
Read the DOJ indictment of Don Lemon and other journalists, lawmakershttps://t.co/2Rkqbd0Ems
— MS NOW (@MSNOWNews) January 30, 2026
The first thing that leaps out at this author is that the indictment is not limited to Lemon himself. Here’s a partial list of the other defendants, besides Lemon: Nekima Levy-Armstrong, Chauntyll Allen, William Kelly, Jamael Lundy, Trahern Crews and Georgia Fort. However, there are also two unknown persons who have been named but the names are blacked out (we refer to those blacked out sections as '[omitted]'). That almost certainly means that they are keeping the fact they have been indicted under seal or otherwise secret until they are arrested and safely in custody, which is fairly routine in these situations.
Recommended
As for the named defendants, who are these other people? Well, this author doesn’t have his ‘Idiot Leftwing Activist Trading Cards’ set handy, but we have already discussed Lundy, and we have previously discussed Levy-Armstrong, Allen, and Kelly, but Trahern Crews and Georgia Fort are unknown to this author.
Second, they have been charged under both 18 U.S.C. § 241 (aka the Klan Act), 18 U.S.C. § 248 (FACE Act) and 18 U.S.C. § 2.
What are those statutes? Well, let’s start with § 241. It says, in relevant part:
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
The cut off text says that they shall be punished in various ways. This has long been used to punish people who use violence and intimidation to silence others, these laws specifically being written to address the terrorism of the KKK. We are sure it is an extra bitter pill for Lemon to swallow that he has been charged with violating the Federal Klan Act. Somewhere he is probably whining that 'I am a gay, black man. How can I charged under a law designed to attack the Klan?' But the law doesn't discriminate based on race or sexual orientation as we are sure his lawyer and the judge will tell him.
Next, we have § 248, a.k.a. the Freedom of Access to Clinics Entrances Act, a.k.a. the FACE Act. As the title suggests, Congress’ focus when passing this law was to allow people to come and go from abortion clinics but the law is not limited to that. Here’s the relevant text of that law:
(a) Prohibited Activities. Whoever—
(1) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person because that person is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services;
(2) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship; or
(3) intentionally damages or destroys the property of a facility, or attempts to do so, because such facility provides reproductive health services, or intentionally damages or destroys the property of a place of religious worship,
The text we immediately cut off says that people who do such a thing are punished in various ways. The indictment only focuses on subsection (2) for obvious reasons. We are not familiar with the history of this statute but it seems very likely to be the result of horse trading—more conservative congresscritters agreeing to protect the entrances of abortion clinics, in exchange for additional protection for freedom of religion.
But we would ask at this point is it possible that the FACE act is partially unconstitutional? For every federal statute, you have to ask ‘where does the Federal Government get the power to do this?’ The Federal Government doesn’t just get to regulate everything, even if you might think it makes sense to have one federal rule on a topic. So… where does the Federal Government get the power? You have to find something in the Constitution that either expressly or implicitly grants the power.
In the case of protecting freedom of religion, that is fairly easy. Freedom of religion is protected by the First Amendment and applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment (as explained here). Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment also states that ‘The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.’ That can and should be interpreted as empowering Congress to provide positive protection to freedom of religion—rather than simply stopping Congress from violating that right.
But what about the part about abortion? For most of this author’s life (we were born in 1972), the reasoning could go like this:
According to the Supreme Court, there is a right to an abortion somewhere in the Constitution, as sated in Roe v. Wade. No one can seem to find the actual words, but the Supreme Court says it is somewhere in the shadows of the Bill of Rights (they actually said that, see here). So, therefore, Congress is empowered through Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect the right to abortion.
But you surely know the problem with this argument today. In 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe in the Dobbs decision, so there is no longer a constitutional right to abortion. So where does Congress get the power to protect abortion clinics from?
Well, another common source of Congressional power is the interstate commerce clause. Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution states that ‘Congress shall have the power … [t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes[.]’ Since the second Roosevelt administration this has been interpreted so broadly that basically any economic activity can be regulated, including a farmer growing and eating his own food, somehow being related to interstate commerce. But as stated in United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) (quoting another case):
‘[E]ven [our] modern-era precedents which have expanded congressional power under the Commerce Clause confirm that this power is subject to outer limits. In Jones & Laughlin Steel, the Court warned that the scope of the interstate commerce power `must be considered in the light of our dual system of government and may not be extended so as to embrace effects upon interstate commerce so indirect and remote that to embrace them, in view of our complex society, would effectually obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local and create a completely centralized government.’ ‘
In other words, the commerce clause cannot be interpreted so broadly that the Federal Government can do everything and the states no longer have exclusive spheres of regulation. In our system, states are supposed to do most of the work or regulating our lives, with the Federal Government only intervening in limited circumstances. While that vision has not be strictly observed, the Court is determined to make it so that there are some subjects that only states are allowed to handle. Following this approach, the Supreme Court has said, for instance, that violence against women and guns near schools are not sufficiently related to interstate commerce to justify congressional regulation and we suspect they might say the same about protecting abortion.
That’s not to say that states can’t protect abortion clinics, of course, and states can and should allow any lawful business to operate. But we don’t see how it is a federal concern.
In any case, we have one more law left: 18 U.S.C. § 2. That deals with spreading liability around:
(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.
(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.
One will note that there is no ‘but journalists’ exception to this statue or any of the others we quoted from.
So, with all that in mind, let’s look at what the indictment specifically alleges about Lemon’s behavior.
First, on page 4 it states that:
All defendants met at a shopping center for a pre-op briefing, during which ARMSTRONG and ALLEN advised other co-conspirators, including defendants KELLY, LEMON, [omitted], LUNDY, CREWS, FORT, and [omitted] about the target of their operation (i.e., Cities Church) and provided instruction on how the operation would be conducted once they arrived at the Church. Once at the Church, all of the defendants entered the Church to conduct a takeover -style attack and engaged in various acts in furtherance of the conspiracy.
So that could be read as Lemon simply observing.
Next, they talk about overt acts. To explain a bit, a conspiracy is basically an agreement to commit a crime. But in order to protect people from being charged merely for idle talk, the government has to prove that at least one party to the agreement committed an overt act. It can be as simple as a person in a conspiracy to counterfeit money buying a color printer so they can attempt to simulate real money, but it has to be something. Here’s what they say about Lemon himself:
Overt Act # 4: At the pre-operation briefing, defendants ARMSTRONG and ALLEN advised other co-conspirators, including defendants KELLY, LEMON, [omitted], LUNDY, CREWS, FORT, and [omitted] bout the target of their operation (i.e., Cities Church) and provided instruction on how the operation would be conducted once they arrived at the Church.
Again, that sounds like observation, and thus protected First Amendment activity. The same can be said about the next overt act, until the end:
Overt Act #5: On the morning of January 18, 2026, defendant LEMON began livestreaming on his internet-based show, ‘TheDonLemonShow,’ where he explained to his audience that he was in Minnesota with an organization that was gearing up for a ‘resistance’ operation against the Federal Government’s immigration policies, and he took steps to maintain operational secrecy by reminding certain co-conspirators to not disclose the target of the operation and stepped away momentarily so his mic would not accidentally divulge certain portions of the planning session.
Now, finally, he seems to have allegedly stepped over the line from observer to participant, according to the indictment. Of course, this is a good time to remind readers that these are just allegations. Presumably the Grand Jury had some evidence to back up those allegations, but Lemon (and the other Defendants) had no opportunity to present evidence of their own, or even to cross examine the witnesses. So, who knows how that evidence would stand up in a truly adversarial process? The point is that we shouldn’t just assume this is true as a fact.
In any case, the part of the paragraph alleging that he started live streaming it is protected expression. But then you get this part:
…and he took steps to maintain operational secrecy by reminding certain co-conspirators to not disclose the target of the operation and stepped away momentarily so his mic would not accidentally divulge certain portions of the planning session.
Lemon is allowed to keep their secrets, but to remind them to keep their secrets crosses the line—if the allegation is true.
Overt Act #6: During a discussion with defendant ARMSTRONG at the pre-op briefing, (a) defendant LEMON thanked defendant ARMSTRONG for what she was doing and assured her that he was ‘not saying ... what’s going on’ (ie, was not disclosing the target of the operation); (b) defendant ARMSTRONG explained that ‘Operation Pullup’ was a ‘clandestine’ operation in which she and other agitators would ‘show up somewhere that is a key location, [where the targets] don’t expect us ... , and we disrupt business as usual. That’s what we’re about to go do right now.’; and (c) defendant LEMON said he would see her there.
Once again, this seems like nothing more than protected observation and reporting. Of course, if you believe these allegations, Armstrong was proverbially hanging herself, telling the world her goal was to disrupt the business of this church. But in this paragraph, it sounds like nothing more than Lemon passively listening to her and presumably transmitting to the world.
Overt Act #7: Before heading to the Church to join his co-conspirators, defendant LEMON advised his livestream audience that, ‘We’re going to head to the operation. Again, we’re not going to give any, any of the information away’ (ie. operational details that would disclose where he and his co-conspirators were heading).
But Lemon is not under any legal duty that we are aware of to tell the world what he is up to, or what this group was up to. We dinged him a minute ago for telling others to keep secrecy, but he is allowed to report and not report as he chooses under the First Amendment.
Overt Act #11: While enroute to the Church, defendant [omitted] told defendant LEMON that they had to ‘catch up’ to the others, and defendant LEMON replied, ‘Let’s go, catch up’; and, because he was still livestreaming, LEMON instructed [omitted] and an unidentified male, ‘Don’t give anything away’ (ie, don’t divulge information about the operation), and advised his audience, ‘We can’t say too much. We don’t want to give it up.’
Saying ‘let’s go, catch up’ is arguably suggesting to the people who invaded the church to hurry up which is more than observation but that feels thin to this author. Refusing to divulge what he knows is protected under the First Amendment, but telling the others not to ‘give anything away’ would seem to be participating in the conspiracy.
Overt Act #15: While inside the Church, defendants ARMSTRONG, ALLEN, KELLY, LEMON, [omitted] LUNDY, CREWS, FORT, and [omitted] oppressed, threatened, and intimidated the Church’s congregants and pastors by physically occupying most of the main aisle and rows of chairs near the front of the Church, engaging in menacing and threatening behavior, (for some) chanting and yelling loudly at the pastor and congregants, and/or physically obstructing them as they attempted to exit and/or move about within the Church.
This arguably fails our requirement of specificity and indeed, it doesn’t seem to allege that all participants engaged in all of this behavior. Still, most of this would not be protected by the First Amendment, but it’s not clear how much Lemon did in that list of conduct, and which specific things and that might be important. For instance, if all Lemon did was ‘physically occupy[]’ part of the church, one might question whether the conduct was criminal at all. First, while we don’t know much about this church, most Christian churches present themselves as welcome to the public at large during services/mass. You’re at least implicitly allowed to come in, although you are expected to try to minimize disruption when you do. So arguably, that wouldn’t even be a trespass. Second, Lemon might have been just standing there, and transmitting, which is protected First Amendment activity as long as he had a right to be there.
Overt Act #20: Defendant LEMON told his livestream audience about congregants leaving the Church and about a ‘young man’ who LEMON could see was ‘frightened,’ ‘scared,’ and ‘crying’ and LEMON observed that the congregants’ reactions were understandable because the experience was ‘traumatic and uncomfortable,’ which he said was the purpose.
Overt Act # 21: As the operation continued, defendant LEMON acknowledged the nature of it by expressing surprise that the police hadn’t yet arrived at the Church, and admitted knowing that ‘the whole point of [the operation] is to disrupt.’
This is a two-fer, but again, this is just his observations. Even him saying that the purpose was to make the experience ‘traumatic and uncomfortable’ or to disrupt the service might be in context him describing the purpose of the invaders, as opposed to Lemon himself. Lemon might claim that his purpose was simply to report on this event, which is undeniably newsworthy.
Overt Act #22: While the takeover operation was underway, defendant LEMON asked defendant ARMSTRONG, ‘Who is the person that we should talk to? Is there a pastor or something?’ and she pointed toward the front of the Church but noted the pastor ‘might have run away.’
While we would like to know more about the context, Lemon is suggesting that he and Armstrong were going to talk to the pastor about something, suggesting again he wasn’t just observing and reporting but participating. That is, unless he uses a royal ‘we’ like … well, like this author does when writing normal pieces for this website, as is official Twitchy style. But that seems unlikely. It certainly suggests that Lemon saw himself as part of this group.
Overt Act #23: With other co-conspirators standing nearby, defendants LEMON, [omitted] and FORT approached the pastor and largely surrounded him (to his front and both sides), stood in close proximity to the pastor in an attempt to oppress and intimidate him, and physically obstructed his freedom of movement while LEMON peppered him with questions to promote the operation’s message.
Intentionally, physically blocking a person in is not protected expression under the First Amendment.
Overt Act #24: While talking with the pastor, defendant LEMON stood so close to the pastor that LEMON caused the pastor’s right hand to graze LEMON, who then admonished the pastor, ‘Please don’t push me.’
That mostly seems to illuminate Overt Act #23 and the same analysis applies. However, we will note that the pastor might have been legally entitled to push people to free himself.
Overt Act # 25: Although the pastor told defendant LEMON and theothers to leave the Church, defendant LEMON and the other defendantsignored the pastor’s request and did not immediately leave the Church.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, transforms this into trespassing, which is not protected by the First Amendment—again, if the allegations are true.
Overt Act #28: At one point, defendant LEMON posted himself at the main door of the Church, where he confronted some congregants and physically obstructed them as they tried to exit the Church building to challenge them with ‘facts’ about U.S. immigration policy.
The (alleged) physical obstruction goes beyond First Amendment activity.
And that is it for specific allegations. There are some more general and non-specific allegations but as of this moment, while it is arguably thin, Lemon was not merely observing what was happening and reporting on it. He was helping it to happen, helping to surround and obstruct people who wanted to leave, and reminding participants to maintain operational security during his live broadcast most likely to stop the police from intervening.
And the more general allegations that we skipped over are that he joined into an agreement to disrupt the services of the church and aided and abetted it. If they can prove he agreed to disrupt the services and not merely to report on the others’ disruption, or that he helped the others to disrupt, then he could be held liable. In particular with aiding and abetting, he could be held as much liable as if he did the crimes personally.
So, in conclusion, the government has alleged, with some specificity, actions that are not strictly protected by the First Amendment. If we were a judge, we would deny any motion to dismiss. But at the same time Lemon is innocent until proven guilty and the government will have to prove he beyond a reasonable doubt that committed these crimes. But so far, the indictment describes behavior that can be lawfully prohibited under the First Amendment.
RELATED: WATCH: Stephen Colbert Claims That the Nazis Were Better Than ICE
BREAKING: An NYT Interview With Biden Just Undermined Thousands of His Late Pardons (A Deep Dive)
Editor’s Note: Democrat politicians and their radical supporters will do everything they can to interfere with and threaten ICE agents enforcing our immigration laws.
Help us hold these leftists accountable and expose their obstruction. Join Twitchy VIP today and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member