In a decision that has drawn criticism from the church that was targeted, St. Paul city attorney Irene Kao announced Wednesday that federal criminal charges pending against anti‑immigration protesters who disrupted a church service in January will not be pursued at the state level. The ruling comes after the U.S. Justice Department in a civil‑rights case against 39 defendants—among them former CNN anchor Don Lemon—charged them with violating civil‑rights statutes following a livestream of the protest at Cities Church.
Kao wrote: “Current evidence is insufficient to meet that standard for criminal charges under Minnesota state statutes.” She added that the decision “should not be interpreted as an endorsement of unlawful behavior or public disorder,” noting the need to balance the right to peacefully protest with religious freedom.
Lead pastor Jonathan Parnell of Cities Church slammed the 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,’” Parnell said in a written statement.
The protest, which saw participants chant “ICE out” and “Justice for Renee Good,” stemmed from a federal ICE operation in Minnesota that culminated in the fatal shooting of 37‑year‑old mother of three, Renee Good, in Minneapolis. The Chicago‑based federal case is still unfolding, with the DOJ seeking grand jury transcripts from Don Lemon.
Attorneys for Cities Church argued that the absence of property damage or violence does not absolve the protesters of wrongdoing. “Violence, destruction of property and threats to public safety remain serious concerns, but none of that occurred during the demonstration,” Kao said, describing the legal threshold for criminal liability.
Four states—Idaho, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Kansas—have enacted laws this year making it a crime to disrupt worship services. The St. Paul ruling may influence how other municipalities interpret the intersection of protest rights and religious assembly in the coming months.
— End —
}
