St. Pauls top prosecutor has declined to pursue state charges against left-wing activists who stormed a Sunday worship service, deepening concerns among conservatives that the law in Minnesotas capital now bends to progressive politics rather than to principle.
According to The Blaze, St. Paul City Attorney Irene Kao who has styled herself a crusader against what she calls "structural racism" announced this week that her office will not file state-level criminal charges against the 39 individuals accused of invading Cities Church during a January 18 ICE Out Action.
Her decision stands in stark contrast to the posture of the Trump-era U.S. Department of Justice, which secured federal indictments against all 39 suspects, including former CNN host Don Lemon, activist attorney Nekima Levy Armstrong, and Democratic operative Jamael Lydell Lundy.
The incident grew out of a coordinated protest by Racial Justice Network, Black Lives Matter Minnesota, and BLM Twin Cities, who targeted the evangelical congregation because "David Easterwood is a Pastor at this church and the Acting Field Director for the ICE office in St. Paul," as Armstrong openly admitted.
Rather than confining their demonstration to public space or federal facilities, the activists marched into the sanctuary mid-service, shouting over the liturgy and doing their apparent best to drown out the sounds of worship.
Church officials say the agitators refused repeated requests to leave, instead berating congregants and screaming in the aisles and pews as families and children looked on.
The disruption followed months of escalating rhetoric on the left, including Lemons October suggestion that "black people, brown people" should take up arms against Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a remark that conservatives argue helped normalize hostility toward law enforcement and those associated with it.
Federal prosecutors treated the church invasion as a serious civil rights matter, charging all 39 suspects with federal offenses tied to the disruption of religious exercise.
Among those indicted was Lundy, a radical activist who previously worked for Democratic Rep. Betty McCollum, has served as a close ally to Mary Moriarty Hennepin Countys Soros-backed prosecutor and is married to St. Paul City Councilwoman Anika Bowie.
Where the DOJ saw a clear violation of religious liberty, Kao has taken a markedly different view.
Kao, the left-leaning daughter of Taiwanese immigrants elevated by the citys progressive leadership, announced that her office would not pursue any parallel state charges against Lemon, Armstrong, Lundy, or their fellow demonstrators.
"Our office has a legal and ethical obligation to file charges only when the available evidence establishes probable cause and supports a reasonable likelihood of conviction beyond a reasonable doubt," Kao said in a written statement defending her decision.
"Following a careful evaluation of the video footage, investigative reports, and other available materials, prosecutors determined that the current evidence is insufficient to meet that standard for criminal charges under Minnesota state statutes," continued the woke prosecutor.
Kao insisted that her refusal to prosecute should not be interpreted as a green light for lawlessness, attempting to frame the episode as a delicate balancing act between competing rights.
After noting that her decision should not be read as an endorsement of illegal behavior, Kao wrote, "The right to peacefully protest is protected, as is the right to exercise ones religious beliefs."
"Balancing these equally important rights is paramount to our decision today," continued the leftist prosecutor, effectively equating a coordinated takeover of a worship service with constitutionally protected protest.
To many conservatives, that framing signals a troubling hierarchy of rights in which progressive activism is privileged over the free exercise of religion, particularly when the target is an evangelical congregation associated with federal immigration enforcement.
Doug Wardlow, director of litigation for Truth North Legal and counsel for Cities Church, sharply criticized Kaos rationale as a fundamental misreading of both property rights and the First Amendment.
"The St. Paul city attorneys decision treats the church like it's a public sidewalk as if the sanctuary were an open forum that anyone may seize mid-service, rather than private property where a congregation has the right to worship undisturbed," said Wardlow.
"By wrongly characterizing the invasion and takeover of a worship service as First Amendment-protected conduct, the city attorneys office sends an unmistakable signal: The law will bend for those whose cause aligns with the politics of those in power," added Wardlow, capturing a sentiment widely shared on the right.
For many religious conservatives, the episode underscores a growing double standard in which left-wing disruptions of churches, pregnancy centers, and conservative events are excused or minimized, even as peaceful right-of-center protests face aggressive prosecution.
Rev. Jonathan Parnell, lead pastor of Cities Church, warned that Kaos logic, if allowed to stand, threatens every faith community in the city. "According to the St. Paul city attorneys logic, it is perfectly fine for agitators to invade a mosque, a cathedral, or a temple, intimidate the families and children inside, and shut down their religious gathering. Just call it a 'protest,'" he said in a statement.
The pastor further questioned whether evangelical Christians enjoy the same legal protections as other religious groups under the citys progressive leadership. The Cities Church pastor noted further that "City Attorney Irene Kaos decision not to charge the agitators who invaded our church on January 18, 2026, leaves us to question whether her commitment to protect religious people includes evangelical Christians."
Beyond the civil rights implications, Kao is also facing scrutiny over potential conflicts of interest tied to her decision. After all, Jamael Lydell Lundy, one of the radicals whom Kao let off the hook, is married to a member of city council the very council that confirms the mayor's city attorney appointments.
Local outlet KSTP-TV has repeatedly pressed Kaos office and that of Democratic Mayor Kaohly Her on whether the case should have been referred to an outside authority to avoid even the appearance of favoritism. KSTP-TV has doggedly but so far unsuccessfully pressed the offices of Kao and Democratic Mayor Kaohly Her about whether the case should have been handled externally to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.
David Schultz, a professor of political science and legal studies at Hamline University, told KSTP that Kaos handling of Lundys case raises legitimate ethical concerns. David Schultz, professor of political science and legal studies at Hamline University, told KSTP that Kao's handling of Lundy's case creates the "possible appearance of a conflict of interest."
"Send it outside City Hall, not even move it to a different attorney in City Hall, but to basically hire an outside firm, review the file, and make their own independent decision regarding whether or not to prosecute or not," said Schultz. "That way it would clearly have addressed any of the concerns about the appearance of conflict of interest, and again, assured the public that there was no favoritism going on here."
For many observers on the right, the unanswered question is whether St. Pauls justice system still applies neutral standards, or whether ideological alignment now determines who is shielded from accountability. As federal prosecutors move forward and local authorities stand down, the case has become a stark test of whether progressive city leaders will defend the religious liberty and property rights of an evangelical church with the same vigor they routinely extend to favored activist causes.
Login