Federal agents arrested three anti-ICE activists in late January 2026 following a disruption of a Sunday worship service at Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota.
The defendants—Nekima Levy Armstrong, Chauntyll Louisa Allen, and William Kelly—were taken into custody roughly three days after demonstrators entered the church during services and chanted inside the sanctuary. The Justice Department confirmed the arrests stem from a coordinated protest that interfered with religious worship.
Why Cities Church Became the Protest Target
Cities Church became the focus of activists because one of its pastors also holds a senior leadership position within ICE’s Minnesota field office. Protest organizers said the dual role symbolized what they view as harmful immigration enforcement practices.
The demonstration followed heightened tensions after the January 7, 2026, fatal shooting of Renée Nicole Good by an ICE officer in Minneapolis, which intensified protests against federal immigration operations across the Twin Cities.
Worship Service Interrupted Mid-Service
The disruption occurred during a Sunday service when demonstrators entered the sanctuary and began chanting. Video footage shows congregants seated as the protest unfolded, with audible objections from attendees and some families leaving the room.
Church leaders later described the event as deeply unsettling for worshippers and confirmed the incident was reported to authorities. No physical injuries were reported, but leaders said the interruption crossed a line.
Federal Charges and Sealed Complaint
According to court filings, the defendants face federal charges tied to interference with civil rights, including alleged violations connected to worship access. Prosecutors cited conspiracy-against-rights statutes and signaled possible application of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, which also protects religious worship.
Portions of the charging documents remain sealed, and the full scope of the allegations is expected to be clarified as court proceedings continue.
NAACP and Civil Rights Backlash
The arrests triggered sharp criticism from civil-rights groups, including the NAACP, which condemned the enforcement action as unconstitutional. Advocates argue the protest constituted protected political expression rather than criminal conduct.
They warned that aggressive federal prosecution could chill lawful protest activity. Supporters of the defendants have called for dismissal of the charges, framing the case as a test of First Amendment protections in politically charged demonstrations.
School Board Member Under Scrutiny
One defendant, Chauntyll Louisa Allen, serves on the St. Paul School Board, drawing additional attention to the case. Critics questioned whether participation in the protest aligns with the responsibilities of an elected education official.
Supporters counter that Allen’s involvement reflects advocacy on behalf of immigrant families and students impacted by federal enforcement. The school board has not announced any disciplinary action as of late January.
ICE Pastor’s Dual Role Fuels Tensions
The protest reignited debate over the appropriateness of a religious leader simultaneously holding a senior ICE position. Activists argue the overlap blurs lines between faith leadership and federal enforcement authority.
Church representatives, however, emphasized that the service was a religious gathering, not a political forum, and said congregants should not be targeted or disrupted over the personal employment of church staff.
William Kelly’s Public Defiance
William Kelly, a U.S. Army veteran and activist known online as “DaWokeFarmer,” publicly defended the protest in the days following the incident. He described the church action as part of broader resistance to immigration enforcement and criticized federal policy.
Kelly later acknowledged receiving threats related to his activism. He was arrested alongside the other organizers and now faces the same federal legal process.
DOJ’s Rapid Enforcement Response
Attorney General Pam Bondi publicly announced the arrests and framed the action as necessary to protect houses of worship. Federal investigators from the FBI and Homeland Security initiated inquiries shortly after the incident.
Bondi emphasized that interference with religious services would not be tolerated, signaling a more aggressive federal posture toward protests conducted inside churches, synagogues, and other protected religious spaces.
Political Fallout Across the Twin Cities
Local officials and activists in Minneapolis and St. Paul reacted sharply to the arrests. Some leaders described the enforcement as excessive and warned it could discourage peaceful protest. Others supported the federal response, arguing that worshippers’ rights must be protected regardless of political cause.
Demonstrators gathered outside the federal courthouse as the case quickly became a flashpoint in regional political debate.
Don Lemon Not Charged
Former CNN anchor Don Lemon was present during the church incident and recorded video but has not been charged. Lemon stated he attended in a journalistic capacity.
A federal magistrate judge declined to authorize a criminal complaint against him, citing insufficient probable cause. As of late January 2026, prosecutors have not pursued further action against Lemon related to the event.
Media Frames Clash Nationwide
National coverage of the incident diverged sharply. Some outlets characterized the disruption as an attack on religious freedom, while others framed it as civil disobedience tied to immigration advocacy.
Legal experts weighed in on whether federal civil-rights statutes were appropriately applied.
The case has become a national example of how protest, press activity, and religious exercise intersect under federal law.
Law Enforcement Signals Broader Intent
Justice Department officials indicated the Minnesota case reflects a broader commitment to protecting sensitive venues from disruption. Federal leaders said civil-rights laws would be enforced when protests interfere with worship, regardless of political motivation.
The arrests are now being cited internally as precedent for responding quickly to similar incidents involving coordinated action inside religious spaces.
Implications for Activists and Churches
For activists, the case highlights increased legal risk when demonstrations move into houses of worship. For faith communities, the incident has prompted renewed focus on security planning and crisis response.
Legal observers note that outcomes in the Minnesota proceedings could influence how future protests are planned—and how churches nationwide prepare for politically motivated disruptions.
What Comes Next
As the defendants appear before federal judges in Minnesota, rulings on probable cause, bail, and applicable statutes will shape the trajectory of the case.
Prosecutors must determine whether to proceed under the FACE Act, conspiracy-against-rights law, or both. The outcome is expected to carry national significance in defining the legal limits of protest activity inside religious services.
Sources:
- “Several people were arrested for protesting at a St. Paul church. Here’s what we know” – CNN.
- “Anti-ICE protest at Minnesota church leads to 3 arrests but no charges for a journalist” – NPR.
- “Anti-ICE protesters disrupted worship in a Minnesota church. Here’s why the First Amendment doesn’t protect that.” – FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression).
- “Storming the Sanctuary in Minnesota: When Protest Crossed the Pulpit” – Regent University / Center for Christian Thought & Action.
- “DOJ investigating after protesters disrupt service at St. Paul church” – ABC News.
- “NAACP Demands Release of Nekima Levy Armstrong” – NAACP.