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, breach of the U.S. Capitol—leaving in place a lower-court ruling that upholds the government’s authority to prosecute demonstrators under a long-standing statute restricting protests inside the Capitol complex.
Nassif challenged the constitutionality of a federal law that prohibits “parading, picketing, and demonstrating” inside the Capitol, arguing that the statute violates the First Amendment’s protections of free speech and assembly. That charge has become one of the most commonly used against January 6 defendants.
The 57-year-old was sentenced to seven months in prison after being convicted of multiple misdemeanors, including disorderly conduct and violent entry. Prosecutors had sought a longer sentence of 10 to 16 months.
In his appeal, Nassif’s public defenders argued that he entered the Capitol nearly an hour after the building had already been breached and stayed for less than 10 minutes. They characterized his actions as “core First Amendment expression” that was “in no way disruptive.”
Those arguments failed at every level of review. Lower courts—including 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 protests and demonstrations. As such, 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 wrote.
Nassif’s petition pointed to an alleged 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 federal appeals court has consistently treated the Capitol as a nonpublic forum, the local D.C. Court of Appeals has recognized limited areas—such as the Capitol Rotunda—as public forums subject to stricter scrutiny of speech restrictions.
U.S. District Judge John Bates had previously upheld the parading charge against Nassif, citing long-standing precedent allowing restrictions on First Amendment activity inside the Capitol to protect congressional proceedings and legislative security. The federal government has argued that such rules are essential to preventing disruptions and ensuring the safety of lawmakers and staff.
By declining to hear the case, the Supreme Court left those rulings intact, reinforcing the government’s ability to continue prosecuting individuals under the parading statute. The decision carries broad implications, as more than 460 defendants have faced the same misdemeanor charge—making it the most frequently applied offense among the more than 1,450 individuals prosecuted in connection with January 6, according to the Department of Justice.
The last January 6–related case the Supreme Court addressed was United States v. Fischer, in which the justices narrowed the scope of the federal obstruction statute under Section 1512(c)(2). That statute had been used against more than 120 defendants, and the ruling raised the government’s burden of proof.
A similar development occurred on Nov. 1, when U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell ruled in United States v. DeCarlo that prosecutors must meet a higher standard to apply the obstruction charge. That decision, as noted by the Examiner, could significantly limit the DOJ’s ability to pursue remaining obstruction cases tied to January 6.
Questions also remain about the scope of pardons President Donald J. Trump may issue during his second term. While Trump has not outlined a definitive plan, he 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.”
Roughly 600 defendants still face charges related to assaulting, resisting, or impeding law enforcement officers, and arrests 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. Although neither was convicted of personally engaging in violence inside the Capitol, both were found guilty of seditious conspiracy and related felonies for organizing the events surrounding the riot.