A fourth federal judge has now rejected efforts by a January 6 defendant to reclaim restitution paid prior to receiving a pardon from President Donald J. Trump—underscoring what many conservatives see as the lingering judicial bias in the aftermath of the Capitol protest.

The latest denial, reported by Law & Crime, came from U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, an Obama appointee, who ruled against 61-year-old Stacy Hager, a Texas man who was convicted on four misdemeanor charges related to the Capitol breach. Hager had sought a refund of the $570 in restitution he was ordered to pay before President Trump issued him a full pardon as part of his sweeping second-term clemency effort.

In a twist, even federal prosecutors supported Hager’s request, stating that there was “no longer any basis justifying the government’s retaining funds.” Yet Judge Chutkan wasn’t persuaded, citing previous denials by three other judges in the Washington, D.C. district: James Boasberg, Royce Lamberth, and Randolph Moss.

Chutkan leaned on an archaic 1877 Supreme Court ruling—Knote v. United States—which defined a pardon as “an act of grace” that does not reverse convictions in a way that entitles the individual to reclaim fines or restitution already paid. “A pardon cannot authorize reimbursement once money has ‘been paid to a party to whom the law has assigned them,’” Chutkan wrote.

While the judge framed her ruling as a matter of legal precedent, critics argue it reflects a broader unwillingness by the D.C. judiciary to let go of politically charged cases tied to the January 6 events—even when the government itself acknowledges no legal justification for retaining the funds.

“The government concurs, acknowledging that pardons generally do not ‘make amends for the past,’” Chutkan admitted in her ruling. But she dismissed their “curious position” that Hager’s case was unique enough to warrant reimbursement.

The Justice Department had noted that Hager’s conviction was formally vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court, meaning it no longer legally exists—setting his case apart from others. “There is no longer any basis justifying the government’s retaining funds exacted only as a result of that conviction,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Adam Dreher argued.

Still, Chutkan ruled that Congress—not the courts—would need to authorize a refund from the U.S. Treasury.

President Trump, who has repeatedly condemned the Biden administration’s politicized prosecution of Jan. 6 defendants, granted over 1,500 pardons to individuals he described as political prisoners of the American left. Many of these individuals were prosecuted aggressively for nonviolent offenses and low-level misdemeanors—some jailed for years without bail or trial.

While Democrats have predictably slammed Trump’s use of presidential clemency, Republican lawmakers and legal observers argue the pardons were a necessary corrective to a weaponized Justice Department that pursued harsh punishments against U.S. citizens while ignoring years of unchecked left-wing rioting and political violence.