A judge denied Minnesota's ambitious request — a day after Don Lemon and Georgia Fort were arrested. But, in Texas, a judge orders 5-year-old Liam Ramos and his dad released.
January has really been a slog! I’m glad of the details about the Menendez ruling you explained. It doesn’t seem as awful as just the headline would indicate. All this jockeying! But then, it’s heartwarming to know that Liam and his dad are going home! Thank you for writing this explanation so that non-lawyers can know what’s going on.
Adding a note to Chris' description of the Lemon/Fort indictments, they are signed by DC political appointees, and by Dan Rosen, the US Attorney for Minnesota. Rosen's background is 30 years in commercial litigation; apparently he has no experience in criminal prosecution or defense.
Thank you very much for the article - would really like to know how the Minnesota plaintiff argument could’ve been strengthened. What were the holes?
Are there other cases being brought?
Really perplexed that the idea of the whole quota system cannot be challenged in court or that the majority of the people who have been taken away and detained do not have criminal records.
What arguments could be brought to illustrate more clearly the barbaric handling of these masked thugs? How can any of this be lawful, their blocking streets, raiding houses without warrants, entering schools and businesses and shopping places, their constant use of violence, the lack of due process? They’re taking people who have no criminal record, taking them even from the courts that are giving them due process.
Certainly not a lawyer, but I am greatly disturbed by :
“Menendez: “ Based on the record before the Court, a factfinder could reasonably credit that Plaintiffs’ sanctuary policies require a greater presence of federal agents to achieve the federal government’s immigration enforcement objectives than in a jurisdiction that actively assists ICE”
That is a troubling, troubling statement, what ‘record’, what ‘factfinder’? What facts are they trying to find? Those to prove the position of the feds claiming there are so many criminals and lawlessness in Minneapolis, in Minnesota? The ‘federal government‘s immigration enforcement objectives’ are themselves an abomination, there is evidence of their abomination every day!
As a lay person. I cannot understand - this sounds like blatant, ignoring of what these ‘objectives’ really are.
How is it possible that she states
“arguments as to motivation and the relative merits of each side’s competing positions are unclear”?
Is that a hint to make things clearer?
Or is this judge wrapping herself in a legal bubble or something worse?
I suspect the decision made by Judge Menendez was very difficult for her. She's right, though. If she had ruled otherwise, the Eighth would have overruled her. And this yo-yo justice is tiring for all.
And you're right in saying that rather than scare people away, acts like the idiotic ones Bondi indulges in will only create more pushback.
Honestly, Trump administration is not only lawless and cruel, it's dumb as bricks.
Judge Biery's written decision has to be one of the all-time greats among district court decisions. I love the subtlety of his reference to John 11:35. Without saying more, he issues a crushing indictment of the Trump administration's disastrous policy and invokes the power of one of the most important lines in the gospels: Jesus wept.
Once again, we see a federal court - the real guardrails these days - following the law whereas the DoJ, as per Chief Judge Patrick Schlitz, glibly doesn’t.
So on Jan 06 2021 I could have legally joined the riot at the US capitol, as long as I had an iPhone and repeatedly referred to myself on video as a citizen journalist?
Chris, an excellent summary of otherwise depressing news. On the bright side, the Dem candidate for Texas state Senate defeated the Republican, 57-43 percent, in a district Trump won by 17 points in 2024. Also, in a Texas Congressional election Abbott delayed as long as he could, a Dem was elected to replace another Dem, leaving a Repub House edge of 218-214. Johnson can lose only 3 votes if everyone is present and voting.
Journalism isn’t “under attack” any more than democracy was “under attack” on January 6. That framing is lazy and dishonest. What’s happening here is conduct enforcement, not viewpoint suppression. Owen Shroyer got 60 days from the Biden DOJ for trespassing outside the Capitol. Don Lemon entered a restricted space inside a church. Same offense class, worse facts. Equal justice means equal outcomes. If the Trump DOJ is serious about neutrality, Lemon should get exactly what Shroyer got: 60 days. The only real debate is whether there should be enhancements, not immunity-by-press-badge. Journalism does not confer a license to trespass. Laws still apply.
A church is "restricted space"? Now *that* is some lazy framing. And if not dishonest, certainly disingenuous. It's an evangelical branch of Christianity church, is it not? Aren't they supposed to be seeking converts? Doors are open to all. Is it members only? (That would probably interfere with tax exempt status). Did all attendees have to present an ID to enter? No? Why would Lemon or Fort be any different?
It's not "lazy framing." It's natural law, the fundament of common law and the constitution:
1 Corinthians 3:17: “If anybody should destroy the temple of God, God will destroy that person, because God’s temple is holy; and you are that temple.”
I think I'm going to remember that quote. The next time some transphobe wants to deny needed health care to a trans person, I will tell them that they are destroying the temple of God.
As for its use here, I recall the line from "Pilgrims Progress" that says "The devil can quote Scripture for his purpose."
Let’s be clear about targets and responsibility. I quoted Scripture to talk about physical intrusion into holy space and natural law fundaments of the Western legal tradition, not to green-light policy warfare or personal mistreatment. The real enemy of trans people in health-care disputes isn’t “God-fearing Christians.” It’s insurance companies and bureaucratic gatekeepers who deny coverage, ration care, and hide behind actuarial language. Those denials come from contracts and profit models, not pulpits. You can debate theology all day—Scripture has been debated for two thousand years—but the funding cuts didn’t come from churches. They came from insurers. Conflating trespass law, worship protection, and insurance disputes is rhetorical sleight of hand. Different actors. Different conduct. Different law.
If you want to remember a quote, try this one - Jude 1:7 "Sodom and Gomorrah, too, and the neighbouring towns, who with the same sexual immorality pursued unnatural lusts, are put before us as an example since they are paying the penalty of eternal fire."
Macbeth may have been referring to life, but he could just have well meant your argument.
So let's skip the attempts to change the subject (to "Who is REALLY to blame for trans people being denied care: profit-mongering insurance companies or the right-wing fundamentalist Christian Bible-thumpers behind the drives to legislate trans folks out of existence?") and get back to the point.
That point being that you quoted the Bible - you know, that book that "has been debated for two thousand years" without even reaching a consensus as to what should be included in it but creating a plethora of sects claiming their particular interpretation of their preferred translation is THE TRUTH - as expressing "natural law" and therefore as the foundation of common law and the Constitution.
Which says at minimum that you don't understand the concept of natural law while indicting strongly that you would have our secular laws be "Bible-based," thereby rejecting the very Constitution you claim as backing - all in service of justifying the arrest of Don Lemon and Georgia Fort in contravention of the social contract that allows journalists to bear witness to and report on events.
That contention is given weight by you choice of closing quote, which bears no connection anything certainly I and as far as I know anyone else has said but seems to be just a random rant threatening divine retribution for, well, for something from your imagination but not for anything here.
And since you brought up Sodom and Gomorrah, I'll reply with Ezekiel 16:49 (NIV):
“Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."
I believe I've given you as much time as you deserve. Last licks are yours if you want them.
Except for this, which I separate to a reply to myself because it's more of a sidebar than part of the actual argument.
Would your contention that Lemon was an "appendage of the protest mob, an added feature ... part and parcel of the intimidation" and therefore deserves punishment be the same if the site had been, say, the HQ of one of those insurance companies you consider "the real enemy of trans people in health-care disputes?"
If yes, your argument about "sacred spaces" goes out the window.
If no, should it be assumed that you would likewise demand punishment for ICE or CBP agents who entered a "sacred space" to arrest a so-called "illegal immigrant?" (Note that the answer "yes, with the permission of those in charge of that space" by definition gives those same authorities the power to absolutely bar entry.)
Finally, who and what gets to define what is a "sacred space?" Does it include all Christian (including Catholic) sects? Does it include synagogues, mosques, Native American sacred lands, various shrines around the world where entry is only by permission? And note that using "a house of God" as a reference point only throws you back onto the already-rejected "'cause the Bible says so."
I'm confused, from what you said, I thought you were going to cite some binding law that applied here? If we're citing the Bible, I think we can find some pretty useful guidance regarding treatment of the stranger in another country.
So, there's a range of discretionary actions within the general range of "enforcing immigration law," and it's the church's job to advocate for a more humane use of that discretion? I guess I'm happy we agree that the Trump administration is currently taking the less humane use of that discretion. Unless you don't think there's a space for the church, because the Trump administration is already acting as humanely as possible within the law's range of discretion?
Which of the journalists attempted to “destroy the temple of God”? If you really believe this nonsense, why not leave DOJ out of it and let God do his magic?
You’re missing the point entirely. The social contract exists so people don’t take matters into their own hands. We surrender private enforcement to the sovereign so the sovereign enforces the law—especially when it comes to protecting houses of worship. When the state does its job, there is no mob justice, no chaos, no bloodshed. The biblical warning isn’t a call for vigilantes; it’s a warning to those who violate holy ground that accountability is inevitable. DOJ enforcement prevents escalation. Failure to enforce invites it. That’s not “God doing magic.” That’s the rule of law preventing civilization from collapsing into something far worse.
When a mob, directed by a president and publicly supported by several of his minions, e.g. Eastman, Giuliani, Trump Jr., attack the Capitol in an attempt to overthrow a free and fair election, that is the most flagrant example of attacking democracy and our republic in the history of the same.
And BLM's media-dazzled incursion into a house of worship during a service isn't the most flagrant example of exactly the type of conduct the FACE Act is trying to prevent? Don Lemon wasn't a journalist. He was an appendage of the protest mob, an added feature. If he were acting as a journalist, he could have said, maybe I'll wait outside, at least until the service is over. Instead, he was part and parcel of the intimidation of believers engaged in worship.
If this conduct is not punished harshly, it is a slippery slope that can lead to society unraveling. It makes it seem like a mob of "protesters and journalists" can waltz into the Supreme Court of the United States during oral argument (after the court officers are all incapacitated in the name of journalism and protest) and blow whistles and dance around and shout and hollar - and intimidate. Because if the radical left have their way, there will be nothing sacred, and societal demoralization will be complete.
Frankly, maybe Don Lemon should get off. Then, the protesters will be justified in pelting Alito and Kavanaugh with cow dung while the court is in session. Protest, right? On the bright side, if that is permissible (as you argue), we won't need so many lawyers.
Sigh. If Lemon joined others in throwing cow dung during a Court argument, he should and would be arrested. If he were one of the reporters observing, and perhaps interviewing participants, what’s the illegal conduct? We have a record of Jan 6 because the events inside and outside the Capitol were documented. Should those recording the events have been arrested for trespassing? Seriously.
First, by trespassing he violated an earlier agreement he made after he disrupted an impeachment hearing.
He made speeches endorsing the claim the election was stolen.
On Jan 5, he put out a video saying "Are we just going to sit here or are we going to actually do something about this?”
On Jan 6, he joined a crowd in shouting "We aren’t going to accept it."
While he could have had some claim to being a journalist (even if it was for Infowars), the fact is, he was not there as a journalist. He was there as an advocate and a participant.
Equating the two cases - Lemon and Shroyer - is flatly false.
Exactly. And he was pardoned. So, the same force that was brought to bear by the Biden DOJ on Owen Shroyer that produced the plea should be brought to bear by the Trump DOJ on Don Lemon. That way, we can be sure that what's good for the goose is good for the gander and that it's not Lawfare and Weaponized Justice. Unless the Biden DOJ was initially wrong ...
January has really been a slog! I’m glad of the details about the Menendez ruling you explained. It doesn’t seem as awful as just the headline would indicate. All this jockeying! But then, it’s heartwarming to know that Liam and his dad are going home! Thank you for writing this explanation so that non-lawyers can know what’s going on.
Came here to say that! 👏👏👏👏👏
Adding a note to Chris' description of the Lemon/Fort indictments, they are signed by DC political appointees, and by Dan Rosen, the US Attorney for Minnesota. Rosen's background is 30 years in commercial litigation; apparently he has no experience in criminal prosecution or defense.
Rosen's office is seriously understaffed on both the criminal and civil sides. "The office is supposed to have 50 criminal prosecutors on staff, but at the moment, there are only “about 17 prosecutors” left, ...." https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2026/01/28/minnesota-ice-law-enforcement-crisis-column-00750137
Thank you on Menendez, Chris
Thank you very much for the article - would really like to know how the Minnesota plaintiff argument could’ve been strengthened. What were the holes?
Are there other cases being brought?
Really perplexed that the idea of the whole quota system cannot be challenged in court or that the majority of the people who have been taken away and detained do not have criminal records.
What arguments could be brought to illustrate more clearly the barbaric handling of these masked thugs? How can any of this be lawful, their blocking streets, raiding houses without warrants, entering schools and businesses and shopping places, their constant use of violence, the lack of due process? They’re taking people who have no criminal record, taking them even from the courts that are giving them due process.
Certainly not a lawyer, but I am greatly disturbed by :
“Menendez: “ Based on the record before the Court, a factfinder could reasonably credit that Plaintiffs’ sanctuary policies require a greater presence of federal agents to achieve the federal government’s immigration enforcement objectives than in a jurisdiction that actively assists ICE”
That is a troubling, troubling statement, what ‘record’, what ‘factfinder’? What facts are they trying to find? Those to prove the position of the feds claiming there are so many criminals and lawlessness in Minneapolis, in Minnesota? The ‘federal government‘s immigration enforcement objectives’ are themselves an abomination, there is evidence of their abomination every day!
As a lay person. I cannot understand - this sounds like blatant, ignoring of what these ‘objectives’ really are.
How is it possible that she states
“arguments as to motivation and the relative merits of each side’s competing positions are unclear”?
Is that a hint to make things clearer?
Or is this judge wrapping herself in a legal bubble or something worse?
Re Lemon et. Al.: Ham sandwich. Inept prosecution will fail. They know it. This is harassment of the highest order.
Thank you for all your work. I’m curious about possible legal consequences of Bondi making extreme allegations and comments in writing.
Well, it was discussed at the Monday arguments — https://www.lawdork.com/p/challenging-the-unprecedented-operation — and it definitely mattered to Menendez, but it wasn’t enough to control the outcome.
I suspect the decision made by Judge Menendez was very difficult for her. She's right, though. If she had ruled otherwise, the Eighth would have overruled her. And this yo-yo justice is tiring for all.
And you're right in saying that rather than scare people away, acts like the idiotic ones Bondi indulges in will only create more pushback.
Honestly, Trump administration is not only lawless and cruel, it's dumb as bricks.
Judge Biery's written decision has to be one of the all-time greats among district court decisions. I love the subtlety of his reference to John 11:35. Without saying more, he issues a crushing indictment of the Trump administration's disastrous policy and invokes the power of one of the most important lines in the gospels: Jesus wept.
Deplorable conclusions reached by the federal judge! 🤬
Once again, we see a federal court - the real guardrails these days - following the law whereas the DoJ, as per Chief Judge Patrick Schlitz, glibly doesn’t.
So on Jan 06 2021 I could have legally joined the riot at the US capitol, as long as I had an iPhone and repeatedly referred to myself on video as a citizen journalist?
Good to know!
😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡
This Owen Shroyer? (from the AP):
“Also Friday, Infowars host Owen Shroyer admitted joining the mob of Trump supporters in the insurrection.
“The Austin, Texas, resident pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of illegally entering a restricted area and faces up to a year behind bars.”
Chris, an excellent summary of otherwise depressing news. On the bright side, the Dem candidate for Texas state Senate defeated the Republican, 57-43 percent, in a district Trump won by 17 points in 2024. Also, in a Texas Congressional election Abbott delayed as long as he could, a Dem was elected to replace another Dem, leaving a Repub House edge of 218-214. Johnson can lose only 3 votes if everyone is present and voting.
Hurray for Judge Biery.
Journalism isn’t “under attack” any more than democracy was “under attack” on January 6. That framing is lazy and dishonest. What’s happening here is conduct enforcement, not viewpoint suppression. Owen Shroyer got 60 days from the Biden DOJ for trespassing outside the Capitol. Don Lemon entered a restricted space inside a church. Same offense class, worse facts. Equal justice means equal outcomes. If the Trump DOJ is serious about neutrality, Lemon should get exactly what Shroyer got: 60 days. The only real debate is whether there should be enhancements, not immunity-by-press-badge. Journalism does not confer a license to trespass. Laws still apply.
https://flgulfnews.com/no-sanctuary-for-don-lemon/
A church is "restricted space"? Now *that* is some lazy framing. And if not dishonest, certainly disingenuous. It's an evangelical branch of Christianity church, is it not? Aren't they supposed to be seeking converts? Doors are open to all. Is it members only? (That would probably interfere with tax exempt status). Did all attendees have to present an ID to enter? No? Why would Lemon or Fort be any different?
Logic still applies, here.
It's not "lazy framing." It's natural law, the fundament of common law and the constitution:
1 Corinthians 3:17: “If anybody should destroy the temple of God, God will destroy that person, because God’s temple is holy; and you are that temple.”
Once you start quoting the Bible as fact, you've lost your case.
A statist would say.
I think I'm going to remember that quote. The next time some transphobe wants to deny needed health care to a trans person, I will tell them that they are destroying the temple of God.
As for its use here, I recall the line from "Pilgrims Progress" that says "The devil can quote Scripture for his purpose."
Let’s be clear about targets and responsibility. I quoted Scripture to talk about physical intrusion into holy space and natural law fundaments of the Western legal tradition, not to green-light policy warfare or personal mistreatment. The real enemy of trans people in health-care disputes isn’t “God-fearing Christians.” It’s insurance companies and bureaucratic gatekeepers who deny coverage, ration care, and hide behind actuarial language. Those denials come from contracts and profit models, not pulpits. You can debate theology all day—Scripture has been debated for two thousand years—but the funding cuts didn’t come from churches. They came from insurers. Conflating trespass law, worship protection, and insurance disputes is rhetorical sleight of hand. Different actors. Different conduct. Different law.
If you want to remember a quote, try this one - Jude 1:7 "Sodom and Gomorrah, too, and the neighbouring towns, who with the same sexual immorality pursued unnatural lusts, are put before us as an example since they are paying the penalty of eternal fire."
Macbeth may have been referring to life, but he could just have well meant your argument.
So let's skip the attempts to change the subject (to "Who is REALLY to blame for trans people being denied care: profit-mongering insurance companies or the right-wing fundamentalist Christian Bible-thumpers behind the drives to legislate trans folks out of existence?") and get back to the point.
That point being that you quoted the Bible - you know, that book that "has been debated for two thousand years" without even reaching a consensus as to what should be included in it but creating a plethora of sects claiming their particular interpretation of their preferred translation is THE TRUTH - as expressing "natural law" and therefore as the foundation of common law and the Constitution.
Which says at minimum that you don't understand the concept of natural law while indicting strongly that you would have our secular laws be "Bible-based," thereby rejecting the very Constitution you claim as backing - all in service of justifying the arrest of Don Lemon and Georgia Fort in contravention of the social contract that allows journalists to bear witness to and report on events.
That contention is given weight by you choice of closing quote, which bears no connection anything certainly I and as far as I know anyone else has said but seems to be just a random rant threatening divine retribution for, well, for something from your imagination but not for anything here.
And since you brought up Sodom and Gomorrah, I'll reply with Ezekiel 16:49 (NIV):
“Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."
I believe I've given you as much time as you deserve. Last licks are yours if you want them.
Except for this, which I separate to a reply to myself because it's more of a sidebar than part of the actual argument.
Would your contention that Lemon was an "appendage of the protest mob, an added feature ... part and parcel of the intimidation" and therefore deserves punishment be the same if the site had been, say, the HQ of one of those insurance companies you consider "the real enemy of trans people in health-care disputes?"
If yes, your argument about "sacred spaces" goes out the window.
If no, should it be assumed that you would likewise demand punishment for ICE or CBP agents who entered a "sacred space" to arrest a so-called "illegal immigrant?" (Note that the answer "yes, with the permission of those in charge of that space" by definition gives those same authorities the power to absolutely bar entry.)
Finally, who and what gets to define what is a "sacred space?" Does it include all Christian (including Catholic) sects? Does it include synagogues, mosques, Native American sacred lands, various shrines around the world where entry is only by permission? And note that using "a house of God" as a reference point only throws you back onto the already-rejected "'cause the Bible says so."
I'm confused, from what you said, I thought you were going to cite some binding law that applied here? If we're citing the Bible, I think we can find some pretty useful guidance regarding treatment of the stranger in another country.
There is. Read my article on this!
https://flgulfnews.com/trump-respects-sanctuary-law-ensuring-churches-offer-compassion-without-undermining-immigration-enforcement/
So, there's a range of discretionary actions within the general range of "enforcing immigration law," and it's the church's job to advocate for a more humane use of that discretion? I guess I'm happy we agree that the Trump administration is currently taking the less humane use of that discretion. Unless you don't think there's a space for the church, because the Trump administration is already acting as humanely as possible within the law's range of discretion?
Which of the journalists attempted to “destroy the temple of God”? If you really believe this nonsense, why not leave DOJ out of it and let God do his magic?
You’re missing the point entirely. The social contract exists so people don’t take matters into their own hands. We surrender private enforcement to the sovereign so the sovereign enforces the law—especially when it comes to protecting houses of worship. When the state does its job, there is no mob justice, no chaos, no bloodshed. The biblical warning isn’t a call for vigilantes; it’s a warning to those who violate holy ground that accountability is inevitable. DOJ enforcement prevents escalation. Failure to enforce invites it. That’s not “God doing magic.” That’s the rule of law preventing civilization from collapsing into something far worse.
When a mob, directed by a president and publicly supported by several of his minions, e.g. Eastman, Giuliani, Trump Jr., attack the Capitol in an attempt to overthrow a free and fair election, that is the most flagrant example of attacking democracy and our republic in the history of the same.
And BLM's media-dazzled incursion into a house of worship during a service isn't the most flagrant example of exactly the type of conduct the FACE Act is trying to prevent? Don Lemon wasn't a journalist. He was an appendage of the protest mob, an added feature. If he were acting as a journalist, he could have said, maybe I'll wait outside, at least until the service is over. Instead, he was part and parcel of the intimidation of believers engaged in worship.
If this conduct is not punished harshly, it is a slippery slope that can lead to society unraveling. It makes it seem like a mob of "protesters and journalists" can waltz into the Supreme Court of the United States during oral argument (after the court officers are all incapacitated in the name of journalism and protest) and blow whistles and dance around and shout and hollar - and intimidate. Because if the radical left have their way, there will be nothing sacred, and societal demoralization will be complete.
Frankly, maybe Don Lemon should get off. Then, the protesters will be justified in pelting Alito and Kavanaugh with cow dung while the court is in session. Protest, right? On the bright side, if that is permissible (as you argue), we won't need so many lawyers.
Sigh. If Lemon joined others in throwing cow dung during a Court argument, he should and would be arrested. If he were one of the reporters observing, and perhaps interviewing participants, what’s the illegal conduct? We have a record of Jan 6 because the events inside and outside the Capitol were documented. Should those recording the events have been arrested for trespassing? Seriously.
Owen Shroyer never entered the Capitol. He was there as a journalist. He got 60 days, fully supported by the Biden DOJ.
https://luthmann.substack.com/p/no-sanctuary-for-don-lemon
I looked up Shroyer.
First, by trespassing he violated an earlier agreement he made after he disrupted an impeachment hearing.
He made speeches endorsing the claim the election was stolen.
On Jan 5, he put out a video saying "Are we just going to sit here or are we going to actually do something about this?”
On Jan 6, he joined a crowd in shouting "We aren’t going to accept it."
While he could have had some claim to being a journalist (even if it was for Infowars), the fact is, he was not there as a journalist. He was there as an advocate and a participant.
Equating the two cases - Lemon and Shroyer - is flatly false.
He pled guilty to illegally entering a restricted area.
Exactly. And he was pardoned. So, the same force that was brought to bear by the Biden DOJ on Owen Shroyer that produced the plea should be brought to bear by the Trump DOJ on Don Lemon. That way, we can be sure that what's good for the goose is good for the gander and that it's not Lawfare and Weaponized Justice. Unless the Biden DOJ was initially wrong ...
Was Owen Stroyer a journalist? That would appear to be a pretty significant factor, wouldn’t it?
Sunny days in Legoland …