Obama Judge Reverses Course On Jan. 6 Defendants
A federal judge appointed by former President Barack Obama has reversed course and ruled that two January 6 defendants—who were pardoned by President Donald J. Trump—must be fully reimbursed for the restitution and fines they previously paid.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued the new order on Wednesday, shifting away from a prior ruling in which he rejected the pair’s request for repayment, according to Fox News.
In his memo, Boasberg revisited the case of Cynthia Ballenger and her husband, Christopher Price. The two were convicted of misdemeanor offenses tied to the events of January 6, 2021, and were ordered to pay several hundred dollars each in restitution and court-assessed fees.
This latest decision clears the way for the federal government to return those funds, a notable change that comes after a ruling from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and the timing of Trump’s sweeping pardons. “Having viewed the question afresh, the court now agrees with the defendants,” Boasberg wrote.
Ballenger and Price were actively appealing their convictions when President Trump—early in his second term—issued a broad pardon covering roughly 1,500 January 6 defendants.
Despite this, Boasberg initially denied their request for reimbursement in July, rejecting their argument that the pardon entitled them to refunds. Each had paid $570 in combined assessments and restitution.
But after the defendants pressed the court to reevaluate, Boasberg reconsidered. His new ruling states that although “a pardon by itself does not entitle a defendant to reimbursement,” their situation changed because their appeals remained open when Trump issued the pardons. The appellate court therefore vacated their convictions entirely—an outcome Boasberg acknowledged effectively erases the legal basis for the financial penalties.
“So even if defendants’ pardon does not entitle them to refunds, the resulting vacatur of their convictions might,” he wrote. He further noted that vacatur “wholly nullifie[s]” the conviction and “wipes the slate clean.”
Boasberg also examined whether repayment would conflict with sovereign immunity or the appropriations clause—two areas that often prevent courts from ordering financial relief against the federal government. He concluded that the authority to impose restitution naturally includes the authority to reverse it: “Because the court could order defendants to pay assessments and restitution, it can order those payments reversed.”
The ruling is likely to be welcomed by many of President Trump’s supporters, who have long argued that the treatment of January 6 defendants has been politically motivated and excessively punitive. Critics of the judiciary have pointed to Boasberg and others as examples of judges who, in their view, have obstructed efforts by President Trump to bring transparency and accountability to Washington.
Democrats, meanwhile, previously condemned Trump’s pardon actions. The late Rep. Gerald Connolly argued in a letter that Trump’s clemency allowed participants in the January 6 riot to escape responsibility for what he claimed was $2.7 billion in damage to the U.S. Capitol.
The court’s reversal marks another significant moment in the broader legal reckoning surrounding January 6 — one increasingly shaped by President Trump’s second-term policies, ongoing appeals, and shifting judicial interpretations.