Pardons for January 6 Defendants: A New Ruling

On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued a surprising order directing that President Trump pardon two defendants involved in the January 6 events. This decision marks a shift from just a few months ago when Boasberg declined their request for repayment.

In his memorandum, Boasberg elaborated on the complex history surrounding Cynthia Ballenger and Christopher Price. Both were convicted of misdemeanors tied to the January 6 incident and had been ordered to pay several hundred dollars in appraisal fees and restitution. Essentially, Boasberg’s latest ruling sets the stage for the government to issue full refunds to them.

The judge noted that this new decision stemmed from a recent Court of Appeals ruling and the simultaneous timing of Trump’s pardon while their case was pending appeal. “Upon reconsidering the matter, the court concurred with the defendants,” Boasberg commented.

Both Ballenger and Price were appealing their convictions when Trump pardoned approximately 1,500 individuals related to January 6 earlier this year. Interestingly, in July, Boasberg had previously denied their request for a reimbursement of $570 each associated with their convictions.

Following that denial, they prompted the court to reevaluate the case, leading to this week’s ruling.

In his updated memorandum, Boasberg referred back to a precedent established in July, which stated that simply receiving a pardon does not guarantee that a former defendant can reclaim property lost due to their conviction. He pointed out that while a pardon is significant, it doesn’t automatically remove the obligation for restitution payments stemming from the conviction.

However, Boasberg emphasized that the order was reversed based on the unique situation of their appeals being active in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit when the pardon was granted, suggesting there was no moot point. Their appeals led to a complete vacating of their convictions by the higher court.

He clarified, “Even if the pardon doesn’t lead to automatic restitution, its presence could potentially result in the annulment of the conviction.” He explained that a vacatur, which implies a complete cancellation, differs fundamentally from a pardon.

Boasberg’s memorandum also considered the legal feasibility of ordering repayments if a conviction was vacated, raising questions around the Appropriations Clause and sovereign immunity, which typically shields the government from being sued without consent.

Ultimately, he concluded that the court maintained the authority to mandate such repayments. “The court can direct that the defendant pay the assessed amount and restitution and also cancel those payments. These actions are interconnected, and sovereign immunity does not impede this process,” he stated.

This new memorandum will likely be interpreted as a win for certain Trump supporters who have criticized Boasberg and others as adversarial judges undermining some of Trump’s more ambitious policy decisions. “After a fresh review of the issue, the court aligns with the defendants,” Boasberg reiterated, adding that if a conviction is vacated, any payments enforced upon the defendants must be returned.

Following Trump’s pardons this year, some Democrats, including Rep. Gerald Connolly, openly criticized the decision, claiming it incorrectly exonerated those involved in the January 6 events, which had resulted in significant damage to the Capitol.