Skip to main content
See every side of every news story
Published loading...Updated

United States v. Lemon

Summary
On August 12, 2026, the Knight Institute joined the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 44 other news and media organizations in filing an amicus brief in support of Don Lemon’s and Georgia Fort’s motions to dismiss the superseding indictment against them on First Amendment grounds. On January 30, 2026, the government arrested independent journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort in connection with their reporting during a January 18, 2026, protest against Immigration and Customs Enforcement at Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota. Lemon and Fort were charged with violations of the Freedom of Access to Clinical Entrances (“FACE”) Act, 18 U.S.C. § 248, and for conspiracy against rights criminalized by statute, 18 U.S.C. § 241. The Knight Institute’s amicus brief argues that the FACE Act and Section 241 cannot be applied to Lemon’s and Fort’s newsgathering conduct for two reasons.
DisclaimerThis story is only covered by news sources that have yet to be evaluated by the independent media monitoring agencies we use to assess the quality and reliability of news outlets on our platform. Learn more here.

1 Articles

United States v. Lemon

On August 12, 2026, the Knight Institute joined the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 44 other news and media organizations in filing an amicus brief in support of Don Lemon’s and Georgia Fort’s motions to dismiss the superseding indictment against them on First Amendment grounds. On January 30, 2026, the government arrested independent journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort in connection with their reporting during a January 18, 2026, protest against Immigration and Customs Enforcement at Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota. Lemon and Fort were charged with violations of the Freedom of Access to Clinical Entrances (“FACE”) Act, 18 U.S.C. § 248, and for conspiracy against rights criminalized by statute, 18 U.S.C. § 241. The Knight Institute’s amicus brief argues that the FACE Act and Section 241 cannot be applied to Lemon’s and Fort’s newsgathering conduct for two reasons. First, they lacked the specific intent required by the statutes because they were at the protests with the intent to cover a news story, not to deprive anyone of the “right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship.” Second, if the statutes were interpreted to extend to journalistic activity, the statutes would be unconstitutionally vague and overbroad because they could be construed to apply to reporting in public spaces. Status: Briefing on motion to dismiss ongoing. Case information: United States v. Levy Armstrong, No. 0:26-cr-00025 (D. Minn.).

Think freely.Subscribe and get full access to Ground NewsSubscriptions start at $9.99/yearSubscribe

Bias Distribution

  • There is no tracked Bias information for the sources covering this story.

Factuality Info Icon

To view factuality data please Upgrade to Premium

Ownership

Info Icon

To view ownership data please Upgrade to Vantage

knightcolumbia.org broke the news on Wednesday, August 19, 2026.
Too Big Arrow Icon
Sources are mostly out of (0)
News
Feed Dots Icon
For You
Search Icon
Search
Blindspot LogoBlindspotLocal