The arrest of Don Lemon on January 29, 2026, represents a significant moment where the boundaries of the First Amendment are being tested by a determined executive branch. While Attorney General Pam Bondi has frames the arrest as a necessary step to protect religious practitioners from “coordinated attacks,” the legal architecture supporting this case appears increasingly fragile upon closer inspection.
The primary vulnerability of the government’s case lies in its previous failure to clear the “probable cause” hurdle in the judicial system. Both Federal Magistrate Judge Douglas Micko and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals initially refused to sign arrest warrants for Lemon. Judge Micko’s public assessment was blunt, stating there was “no evidence” of criminal behavior and that Lemon was acting in his capacity as a journalist documenting a newsworthy event. This judicial skepticism creates a high mountain for the prosecution to climb, as they must now prove that the exact same evidence, which a judge already found insufficient, somehow constitutes a federal conspiracy.
By bypassing these judicial rejections through a grand jury indictment, the Department of Justice has secured an arrest, but it has not necessarily secured a viable path to conviction. The FACE Act requires proof of “physical obstruction” or “force,” standards that historically require more than just presence or the act of filming. If the DOJ cannot produce evidence of Lemon physically blocking congregants or using threats, they risk a “backfire” where the court not only dismisses the charges but issues a ruling that significantly strengthens legal protections for journalists. Such a precedent would effectively shield reporters from being charged as co-conspirators simply for having prior knowledge of, or being present at, a scene of civil disobedience.
Ultimately, the decision to pursue a “thin” case while Lemon was in Los Angeles for a high-profile event like the Grammy Awards suggests a strategy focused more on the optics of deterrence than on the likelihood of a legal victory. If the prosecution fails to meet the evidentiary standards of the FACE Act, the result will likely be a landmark affirmation of press freedom. This case serves as an objective reminder that while the government can initiate a “perp walk,” it is the strength of the legal theory that determines the final verdict in a constitutional democracy.
Continue Reading
This article was originally published on Substack. Subscribe to get updates directly to your inbox.