'Vindictive' DOJ cases in peril as lawyers say Trump 'caused terror, violence and murder'
The Justice Department's first-ever prosecution of protesters of the Trump administration under a church-protection law now faces dismissal, with defendants arguing President Donald Trump ordered it out of spite.
Most of the more than 30 people charged over a January ICE protest inside a St. Paul church asked a federal judge on Aug. 31 to throw out the case, according to a joint motion filed in U.S. District Court in Minnesota.
A large slate of lawyers argued the government charged their clients as political payback at the behest of the president as part of a selective and vindictive prosecution, the motion states.
The defendants were reacting to Trump's directives, which "caused terror, violence, and murder in Minnesota" when they entered Cities Church in St. Paul on Jan. 18, prompted by the knowledge that its pastor David Easterwood also worked for the local Immigration and Customs Enforcement field office, their attorneys argued.
Federal charges followed within days.
Federal agents arrested Nekima Levy Armstrong, a civil rights attorney and activist, on Jan. 22, and then-Attorney General Pam Bondi announced the arrest on social media, claiming that NAACP leader Levy Armstrong "allegedly played a key role in organizing the coordinated attack on Cities Church." A grand jury indicted nine defendants a week later, and a superseding indictment in February added 30 more people.
Days earlier, Renee Good, a 37-year-old U.S. citizen and mother of three, was shot and killed by an ICE agent in Minneapolis.
The Trump administration's crackdown on protesters continued following the church arrests. Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old intensive care nurse at the VA hospital, was shot and killed by a U.S. Border Patrol officer on Jan. 24 while protesting peacefully in Minneapolis, the motion says.
The shootings occurred during Operation Metro Surge, which sent as many as 2,000 federal agents and officers into the Minneapolis area for what the motion describes as one of the largest single-city Homeland Security mobilizations in years.
Those arrested at the Minnesota church, including Armstrong and others, pleaded not guilty in February to conspiracy against rights.
"They have altered the facts, just as they altered my image as a way of trying to criminalize nonviolent, peaceful protests and lawful dissent against their unlawful and unjust actions," Armstrong told Democracy Now!, referring to an administration photo that appeared digitally altered to show her crying.
The activist's protests were based on the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, a law Congress passed to stop violence against abortion providers. The law covers places of worship. No one had ever been criminally charged under the law's place-of-worship provision in its 30-year history, according to the motion.
The vindictive prosecution motion notes that the charges are "unequal, oppressive" and have "a clear and dangerous chilling effect on the Defendants and anyone else who wants to voice their opposition to U.S. Government policies"
The motion argues that the Justice Department brought the case "at the direction and behest of President Donald J. Trump" and to fulfill a "mission to satisfy the personal animosities of its chief client, Donald Trump."
"Sadly, this is not at all hyperbole, but the cold hard facts behind this prosecution," the motion says of the department's approach.
While these defendants face felonies, people convicted of blocking abortion clinics went free. Trump pardoned 24 people convicted of FACE Act violations within days of taking office in 2025, some of whom had been convicted in multiple jurisdictions, according to the motion.
One pardoned defendant had live-streamed her intent to "terrorize this place" the day before she barricaded a Manhattan clinic door, crushing a worker's hand with such force that three people were needed to pry the door open, the motion says.
"The record shows that individuals who engaged in the same or much more serious and violent conduct, whether at a progressive liberal church or an abortion clinic, were treated differently," the motion says.
Anti-abortion activist Mark Houck was charged with shoving an elderly clinic escort to the ground twice and was acquitted at trial, the motion says. He then sued the government, and a district judge dismissed every claim as not plausible.
The administration reportedly agreed to pay Houck more than $1 million to settle the case on appeal without ever filing a brief in defense of the government, according to the motion.
"Not only were such similarly situated individuals not prosecuted, they were in many instances rewarded with large monetary payouts from the Justice Department," the motion says.
Two other church disruptions drew no federal charges at all, the motion says. Protesters in Orlando, Florida, rose during a children's sermon at an LGBTQ-affirming church in March 2025 and shouted "Synagogue of Sin!" at the congregation, according to the motion.
Republican congressional candidate Valentina Gomez stood up during a service at a Texas church in November 2025 and said that "homosexuality is a sin and whoever supports that is worthy of death," the motion says.
Neither incident produced a federal investigation or a FACE Act charge, according to the filing.
The dismissal motion is not the only trouble facing prosecutors. U.S. Magistrate Judge Douglas Micko ordered the Justice Department in July to hand over grand jury testimony and evidence so he could determine whether the government misled jurors while seeking the indictment.
Journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort filed their own motions to dismiss in August, with Fort arguing that she was covering the protest as a reporter.
"The invasion of Cities Church was a planned, coordinated effort to disrupt a worship service and interfere with religious exercise that placed congregants, including children, in fear for their lives," Doug Wardlow, litigation director at True North Legal, said in February on behalf of the church.
Defendants asked the court to dismiss the case outright, or to grant them access to internal Justice Department communications and hold a hearing where they could present evidence, according to the motion.