The Jan. 6 order barring the defendants from entering Washington, D.C., could pose a constitutional challenge to the U.S. Capitol, one legal expert said.
Judge Amit P. Mehta filed the application Friday for “defendants Stewart Rhodes, Kelly Meggs, Kenneth Harrelson, Jessica Watkins, Roberto Vallejo, Edward Vallejo, David Moreschel, and Joseph Hackett.” The specified command was specified. What is allowed is not the subject of the order.
Rhodes, founder of Oath Keepers, was previously seen in the Longworth House office building at the Capitol Complex. He was convicted of seditious conspiracy.
Pro-life protester pardoned by Trump, Fox confirms
The order states that “no person shall knowingly enter the District of Columbia without first obtaining permission from the court.” “Do not knowingly enter the United States Capitol Building or the surrounding grounds known as Capitol Square,” it adds.
The Jan. 6 order barring the defendants from entering Washington, D.C., could pose a constitutional challenge to the U.S. Capitol, one legal expert said. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc., Getty Images)
The order is effective as of noon Friday, according to the filing. Later that day, the Department of Justice filed a motion seeking to lift the order.
“If a judge decides that Jim Biden, General Mark Milley, or any other individual is prohibited from visiting the nation’s capital — even after receiving a last-minute preemptive pardon from the former president. , I believe most Americans would disagree. Motion was sentenced to a term, a term, a term, a sentence,'' attorney Edward Martin said in a statement.
“This is a very unusual order,” Jonathan Turley, a Fox News Media contributor and Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, told Fox News Digital. “The judge relied on the fact that the sentence was commuted, but the defendant did not receive a full pardon.”
Defendants banned from Capitol DC by 6 federal judges commuting in January
Ron Coleman, an attorney with Dhillon Law Group, called the order “novel.”
Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes was convicted of seditious conspiracy. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File)
“A court claims jurisdiction over a person pardoned for a conviction, which is probably the basis of the order or the legal basis for making Washington, D.C., a capital like Moscow.” “It's unclear what would have to be done in the old Soviet Union, where citizens would need permission to enter,” Coleman said.
Nancy Pelosi slams Trump's 'shameful' pardon in January. 6 defendants
Turley said the new order could “proven a factor” in President Donald Trump's case, but extending full pardons to those with commuter sentences would mean “the order would allow Trump to provide only commuter sentences.” It is not clear whether he will be urged to reconsider his decision to do so.”
Turley noted that the order could raise constitutional challenges, including First Amendment implications.
Trump pardoned nearly all of the January 6 defendants earlier this week after promising to do so at his first parade. (Reuters/Carlos Barria)
“I think the court has effectively prohibited government officials from being able to associate or petition without prior approval of the court,” Turley said. “That could raise questions under the First Amendment.
“I think this will be challenged by these individuals.”
Trump pardoned nearly all of the January 6 defendants earlier this week after promising to do so at his first parade.
DOJ is considering charging 200 more people four years into January. 6 capitol attack
Trump signed off on Monday. Frees more than 1,500 people charged with crimes From January 6, 2021, the attack on the U.S. Capitol. The order required the Federal Bureau of Prisons to act immediately upon receiving a pardon.
Those pardoned in his first order included Enrique Tarrio. Enrique Tarrio was a former Proud Boys president who was sentenced to 22 years in prison for seditious conspiracy.
Click here to get the Fox News app
Fox News' David Spant, Diana Stancey and Jamie Joseph contributed to this report.
