‘Unusual order’ barring commuted J6 defendants from DC, Capitol raises constitutional implications: expert
An order barring commuted Jan. 6 defendants from entering Washington, D.C., and the U.S. Capitol could raise constitutional challenges, one legal expert says.
In a filing Friday, Judge Amit P. Mehta specified the order applied to “Defendants Stewart Rhodes, Kelly Meggs, Kenneth Harrelson, Jessica Watkins, Roberto Minuta, Edward Vallejo, David Moerchel, and Joseph Hacket,” whose sentences were commuted. Those pardoned are not subject to the order.
Rhodes, founder of the Oath Keepers, was previously seen in the Capitol complex’s Longworth House Office Building. He was convicted of seditious conspiracy.
PRO-LIFE PROTESTERS PARDONED BY TRUMP, FOX CONFIRMS
The order states, “You must not knowingly enter the District of Columbia without first obtaining the permission from the Court.” It adds, “You must not knowingly enter the United States Capitol Building or onto surrounding grounds known as Capitol Square.”
The filing says the order is effective as of Friday at noon. Later that day, the Justice Department filed a motion seeking to lift the order.
“If a judge decided that Jim Biden, General Mark Milley, or another individual were forbidden to visit America’s capital — even after receiving a last-minute, preemptive pardon from the former President— I believe most Americans would object. The individuals referenced in our motion have had their sentences commuted — period, end of sentence,” Acting U.S. Attorney Edward Martin said in a statement.
“This is a very unusual order,” Jonathan Turley, Fox News Media contributor and the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, told Fox News Digital. “The judge is relying on the fact that the sentences were commuted, but the defendants did not receive full pardons.”
COMMUTED JAN. 6 DEFENDANTS BARRED FROM DC, CAPITOL BUILDING BY FEDERAL JUDGE
Ron Coleman, counsel at Dhillon Law Group, called the order “novel.”
“It is unclear what basis the court would have to assert jurisdiction over someone who has been pardoned for the conviction that is presumably the basis for the order or what the legal grounds are for making Washington, D.C., the kind of national capital, like Moscow in the old USSR, that a citizen needs permission to enter,” Coleman said.
NANCY PELOSI SLAMS TRUMP’S ‘SHAMEFUL’ PARDONS OF JAN. 6 DEFENDANTS
Turley said that although the new order could “prove a factor” in President Donald Trump extending a full pardon to those with commuted sentences, “it’s not clear whether an order will prompt Trump to reconsider his decision to offer only commutations.”
Turley noted that the order could raise constitutional challenges, including First Amendment implications.
“I think the court is effectively barring these individuals from being able to associate or petition government officials without the prior approval of the court,” Turley said. “That could raise questions under the First Amendment.
“I expect this will be challenged by these individuals.”
Trump pardoned nearly all Jan. 6 defendants earlier this week after promising to do so at his inaugural parade.
DOJ CONSIDERS CHARGING 200 MORE PEOPLE 4 YEARS AFTER JAN. 6 CAPITOL ATTACK
Trump signed off Monday on releasing more than 1,500 people charged with crimes from the Jan. 6, 2021, attack at the U.S. Capitol. The order required the Federal Bureau of Prisons to act immediately on receipt of the pardons.
Those pardoned in his initial order included Enrique Tarrio, the former Proud Boys chairman who faced a sentence of 22 years in prison for seditious conspiracy.
Fox News’ David Spunt, Diana Stancy and Jamie Joseph contributed to this report.
