Supreme Court Rejects Appeal of Jan. 6 ‘Parading’ Conviction
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to take up an appeal from John Nassif, a Florida man convicted for his role in the January 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol, leaving in place lower-court rulings that rejected a First Amendment challenge to one of the most commonly used charges stemming from the riot.
Nassif had asked the high court to review the constitutionality of a federal statute prohibiting “parading, picketing, and demonstrating” inside the Capitol, arguing that the law unlawfully infringes on free speech and assembly rights protected by the First Amendment. The statute has been routinely applied by federal prosecutors in January 6 cases.
The 57-year-old was sentenced to seven months in prison after being convicted of multiple misdemeanor offenses, including disorderly conduct and violent entry. Prosecutors initially sought a sentence ranging from 10 to 16 months.
According to his public defenders, Nassif entered the Capitol nearly an hour after the building had already been breached and remained inside for less than 10 minutes. His attorneys argued that his conduct amounted to “core First Amendment expression” and was “in no way disruptive.”
Those arguments failed to persuade lower courts. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected Nassif’s claims, ruling that Capitol buildings are not public forums open to demonstrations and that the government may impose reasonable, viewpoint-neutral restrictions to preserve security and order.
“Nassif has not established that the Capitol buildings are, by policy or practice, generally open for use by members of the public to voice whatever concerns they may have — much less to use for protests, pickets, or demonstrations,” the three-judge panel stated.
In his petition, Nassif pointed to what he described as a conflict between the D.C. Circuit and the D.C. Court of Appeals over whether parts of the Capitol qualify as public forums. While the D.C. Circuit has consistently treated the Capitol as a nonpublic forum subject to broader regulation, the D.C. Court of Appeals has previously recognized certain areas, including the Capitol Rotunda, as public forums where speech restrictions must be narrowly tailored.
U.S. District Judge John Bates had earlier upheld the parading charge against Nassif, citing longstanding legal precedent allowing the government to enforce reasonable limits on First Amendment activity inside the Capitol. Federal officials have argued such restrictions are essential to prevent disruptions to congressional proceedings and to protect the legislative branch.
By declining to hear the appeal, the Supreme Court allowed the lower court’s ruling to stand, reinforcing the government’s authority to prosecute Capitol demonstrations under the parading statute. The decision carries broad implications for more than 460 defendants charged with the same misdemeanor, making it the most frequently used charge among the more than 1,450 January 6 defendants prosecuted so far, according to the Department of Justice.
The Supreme Court’s most recent January 6-related decision came in United States v. Fischer, where the justices narrowed the scope of the federal obstruction statute, Section 1512(c)(2). That ruling raised the evidentiary bar for prosecutors and affected more than 120 defendants previously charged under the provision.
On Nov. 1, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell issued a similar decision in United States v. DeCarlo, further tightening the standard for applying the obstruction charge. Those rulings have fueled speculation that the Justice Department may face increasing difficulty sustaining obstruction prosecutions in remaining January 6 cases, the Examiner reported.
Questions also remain about how President Donald J. Trump, now serving his second term, will approach pardons related to January 6. The Examiner noted that the scope of potential pardons is still unclear. Trump has previously said, “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.”
Nearly 600 defendants are still facing charges related to assaulting, resisting, or impeding law enforcement officers, and federal arrests connected to the riot continue. The longest sentences to date have gone to figures such as Stewart Rhodes, founder of the Oath Keepers, and Enrique Tarrio, leader of the Proud Boys, both of whom were convicted of seditious conspiracy and related felonies despite not being charged with personally engaging in violence inside the Capitol.