Supreme Court Rejects Appeal of Jan. 6 ‘Parading’ Conviction
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up an appeal from John Nassif, a Florida man convicted for his involvement in the January 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol, leaving intact a lower court ruling that continues to shape how the federal government prosecutes hundreds of related cases.
Nassif had asked the high court to review the constitutionality of a federal statute that prohibits “parading, picketing, and demonstrating” inside the Capitol building. His legal team argued the law violates the First Amendment’s protections for free speech and peaceful assembly—an argument that has surfaced repeatedly in January 6 prosecutions, as the charge remains one of the most commonly used by federal prosecutors.
The 57-year-old was sentenced to seven months in prison after being convicted on multiple misdemeanor counts, including disorderly conduct and violent entry. Prosecutors initially sought a harsher sentence ranging from 10 to 16 months.
According to Nassif’s public defenders, he entered the Capitol nearly an hour after the building had already been breached and stayed inside for less than 10 minutes. They characterized his actions as “core First Amendment expression” that was “in no way disruptive,” arguing that his conduct fell squarely within constitutionally protected speech.
Those arguments failed in the lower courts. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected Nassif’s claims, ruling that the Capitol is not a public forum open to demonstrations. In its decision, a three-judge panel held that the government may impose reasonable, viewpoint-neutral restrictions inside the building to preserve order and security.
“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 panel wrote.
Nassif’s petition to the Supreme Court pointed to a legal conflict between the D.C. Circuit and the D.C. Court of Appeals. While the federal appellate court has classified the Capitol as a nonpublic forum—granting the government broader authority to regulate speech—the D.C. Court of Appeals has previously recognized certain spaces, such as 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, relying on longstanding precedents that allow limits on First Amendment activity within the Capitol. The Justice Department has argued such restrictions are essential to prevent disruptions of congressional proceedings and to protect the integrity of the legislative process.
By declining to hear the case, the Supreme Court left those rulings in place. The decision carries wide-ranging consequences for more than 460 January 6 defendants charged under the same misdemeanor statute, making it the most frequently used charge among the more than 1,450 individuals prosecuted so far, according to the Department of Justice.
The last major January 6-related case the Supreme Court addressed was United States v. Fischer, in which the justices narrowed the scope of the obstruction statute under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2). That provision had been used against more than 120 defendants, but the Court’s ruling raised the government’s burden of proof.
On Nov. 1, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell echoed that reasoning in United States v. DeCarlo, setting a higher bar for applying the obstruction charge. The ruling signaled growing judicial skepticism and suggested prosecutors may face difficulties sustaining the charge in remaining cases, the Examiner reported.
Questions also remain about how President Donald J. Trump—now serving his second term in office—will handle potential pardons related to January 6. While no final decisions have been announced, 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 still face charges for assaulting, resisting, or impeding law enforcement officers, and federal investigations continue. The longest sentences have been handed down to figures such as Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes and Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, both of whom were convicted of seditious conspiracy and related felonies despite not being accused of personally committing violence inside the Capitol.
As courts continue to narrow the legal tools available to prosecutors—and as the Supreme Court declines further review—the future of many January 6 cases remains uncertain, even as the Biden-era prosecutions continue to ripple through the judicial system.