-Minnesota Judge Exposes DOJ’s Attempt to Salvage Church Protest Arrest Warrants

first off, there’s‍ a⁢ chance my headline (which went through several iterations) undersells what’s actually going on here. What’s detailed ‍below⁢ is yet‍ another jaw-dropping act of executive hubris, with the DOJ again deciding it‌ can do whatever the hell it wants ​when a judge dares to tell it “no.”

A little background: it was discovered ‌at some point that the acting director ​of the St. ​Paul ICE field office, David Easterwood, was also a pastor of Cities Church, also located‌ in St. Paul, Minnesota. A protest naturally followed.A bit more unnaturally, protesters entered the ‍church and disrupted the service. CNN’s‍ Don Lemon covered the protest, drawing some ​fire of his own simply for being ⁣a rather persistent critic of the Trump governance and its actions.

Much more naturally, the administration promptly declared​ it was going to start arresting some people, a list ⁣that included CNN’s Don Lemon and his producer.

U.S. Department of Justice Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said her agency is investigating ⁣federal civil rights violations “by these people desecrating a house of worship and interfering with Christian worshippers.”

“A house of⁣ worship ‍is ‍not a public forum for⁤ your protest! It ⁢is a space protected from exactly such acts by federal criminal and civil laws!” she said on ‌social media.

Attorney General Pam Bondi also ‍weighed in on social media, saying that any ‌violations ‌of federal ​law would be prosecuted.

You’ll note the qualifier AAG dhillon used in this exclamation point-riddled X missive: “Christian worshippers.” That sort⁣ of thing ​matters, because it makes it clear (perhaps​ unintentionally) ⁤that this government won’t mind if other protesters disrupt religious services engaged in by members of other ‌religions. (You know‌ exactly what I mean ‌as assuredly as Dhillon knew what she meant when posted that​ response to the protest.)

Simultaneously occurring, in my home ‌state, kristi Noem’s successor, Governor Larry Rhoden, ⁤announced legislation⁣ that would turn the misdemeanor offense of ⁢using threats or​ violent acts to prevent people from practicing their religion into a felony that would double ⁣the jail time and

Judge Criticizes DOJ’s ‘Unprecedented’ Attempt to Expedite arrests

The Department of ⁣Justice faced sharp criticism from a federal judge after attempting to bypass standard criminal procedure to secure arrest warrants related to protests at a St. Paul church last Sunday. Judge Michael J. Schiltz ​of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota described the DOJ’s actions as‌ “unprecedented” and questioned the‍ urgency presented in ⁢their request for immediate judicial review.

I am​ working from home today, as the program⁤ that my mentally disabled ⁣adult son attends each day is closed because of the ‍extreme cold. ‍at 11:34 am, I received an email regarding Case No. 26-1135, entitled “In re:​ United States of​ America.” The ⁢order in its entirety read:

The motion of the United States to seal is granted. The Chief Judge of the United States District Court for‍ the district of Minnesota is invited to file ​a⁣ response, at ‌his discretion,⁣ to ​the petition for writ of mandamus.⁣ Any response is due by 2:00 p.m. Friday, January 23.

This​ is the first that I have heard of any petition for a writ of mandamus. The United States did not have the courtesy to tell me that they would be filing such a petition, nor did the united States‍ serve the petition on me. I am unable to access any documents in Case No. 26-1135 because, at the request of the United States, the case is sealed-apparently even from me. So I have been given about two-and-one-half hours to respond ⁣to a mandamus petition that I have not read and cannot ⁢read.

Apparently I am suppose ⁣to guess what the petition is about and ‌guess what the mandamus petition says and then respond.

The situation unfolded after a magistrate judge rejected five of the eight arrest warrants on Tuesday evening.​ The DOJ immediately demanded‍ a review, which was assigned to Judge Schiltz. He informed the DOJ that their request was⁣ “unprecedented” and⁢ scheduled a meeting with⁣ other district judges to⁤ determine how to proceed. That meeting was later postponed due to “security concerns” related to the arrival of J.D. Vance and Attorney General Pam Bondi in Minneapolis, along with protests at ‌the courthouse.

Frustrated by the delay, the DOJ appealed directly to the‍ Appeals Court, ⁣citing “national security” concerns and the potential for further disruptions ⁢at the church. They sought to arrest three more protesters, but appeared to have dropped efforts to detain Don Lemon.

Judge Schiltz’s response directly challenged the DOJ’s justifications:

The government’s arguments about the urgency of its ‌request makes no sense. As the government says, “dozens” of protestors invaded Cities Church ⁤on Sunday. The leaders of​ that group‌ have been arrested, and everyone ‌knows that they have been arrested. The government says ⁣that ‌there are ​plans to ‍disrupt Cities‌ Church again on Sunday. Of course, the best way to protect Cities Church is to protect⁢ Cities Church; we have ⁢thousands of law-enforcement officers in town, and presumably ⁢a few of them could be stationed⁤ outside‍ of Cities Church on Sunday. The government does not ⁢explain why the arrests of five more people – one of whom is⁤ a journalist and the other his producer – would make Cities Church any safer, especially because that would still leave “dozens” of those⁢ who invaded the church on Sunday free to do it again.

Judge Schiltz’s letters, as described in court filings, highlight what he considers deeply unprofessional behavior from the DOJ. The Appeals Court ⁢ultimately⁢ rejected the DOJ’s attempt to bypass the lower court,​ though their ruling was limited in scope.

Though, a concurring opinion from judge Jonathan⁣ A. Grasz raised concerns:

“The Complaint and Affidavit clearly establish probable⁣ cause ⁤for all five arrest warrants,and while there is no⁤ discretion to refuse to issue an ⁤arrest ​warrant once probable cause for its issuance has been⁢ shown … the government ⁤has failed to establish that it has no other adequate means of obtaining the requested relief,” Grasz wrote.

Critics suggest Judge Grasz’s comments​ may signal support⁤ for the warrants if they are resubmitted at a later stage. For now, the warrants remain unexecuted, though concerns remain that the DOJ will pursue other aggressive tactics.