Supreme Court Rejects Appeal of Jan. 6 ‘Parading’ Conviction
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal from John Nassif, a Florida man convicted for his role in the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.
Nassif challenged the constitutionality of a statute prohibiting “parading, picketing, and demonstrating” inside the Capitol, arguing that it infringes on First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly. This law has been frequently applied in prosecuting defendants involved in the Capitol breach.
President-elect Donald Trump has reportedly considered pardons for numerous individuals implicated in the January 6 riot.
At 57 years old, Nassif received a seven-month prison sentence after being convicted on multiple misdemeanor charges, including disorderly conduct and violent entry. Prosecutors had initially sought a sentence of 10 to 16 months, as reported by the Washington Examiner.
Nassif’s defense attorneys argued that he entered the Capitol approximately an hour after the breach and stayed for less than 10 minutes, characterizing his actions as “core First Amendment expression” that was “in no way disruptive.”
However, lower courts rejected these arguments. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed that the Capitol is not a public forum open to protests, permitting the government to enforce reasonable and viewpoint-neutral restrictions to ensure security and order.
“Nassif has not demonstrated that the Capitol buildings are, by policy or practice, generally open for public expression of concerns — let alone protests, pickets, or demonstrations,” the appellate panel wrote.
Nassif’s legal team highlighted a disagreement between the D.C. Circuit and the D.C. Court of Appeals regarding the Capitol’s classification as a public forum. While the D.C. Circuit has deemed the Capitol a nonpublic forum with broader permissible restrictions, the D.C. Court of Appeals has recognized certain areas, such as the Capitol Rotunda, as public forums requiring narrowly tailored limitations on speech.
U.S. District Judge John Bates had previously upheld the parading charge, citing precedents that allow reasonable restrictions on First Amendment activities within the Capitol to prevent disruption of congressional proceedings and to protect legislative security.
By declining to hear Nassif’s case, the Supreme Court leaves the lower court’s decision intact, reaffirming the government’s authority to enforce the parading statute. This decision carries significant implications for over 460 defendants charged under the same misdemeanor in connection with the January 6 events, which has become the most commonly applied charge among the 1,450-plus prosecutions thus far, according to the Department of Justice.
In a related case, United States v. Fischer, the Supreme Court previously narrowed the scope of the obstruction statute, Section 1512(c)(2), impacting over 120 cases. Similarly, in United States v. DeCarlo, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell raised the burden of proof for applying this statute, potentially complicating future prosecutions involving obstruction charges.
Trump’s intentions regarding pardons for January 6 defendants remain uncertain. He has stated, “I am inclined to pardon many of them. I can’t say for every single one because a couple of them, probably, they got out of control.”
To date, nearly 600 individuals have faced charges for assaulting, resisting, or impeding law enforcement officers during the riot, and arrests are ongoing.
The most severe sentences have been handed to leaders such as Stewart Rhodes, founder of the Oath Keepers, and Enrique Tarrio, leader of the Proud Boys. While neither participated directly in the violence inside the Capitol, both were convicted of seditious conspiracy and other charges for organizing the riot.