Boasberg reverses course on Jan. 6 defendants pardoned by Trump
In a significant legal development, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg has ordered full refunds for restitution payments and fines incurred by two defendants involved in the January 6 Capitol riots, Cynthia Ballenger and Christopher Price. This ruling, issued on Wednesday, marks a reversal from a previous decision made just months earlier when Boasberg had denied their request for repayment. The judge’s latest memo order outlines the complex history surrounding their cases, which were pending appeal when former President Donald Trump issued a sweeping pardon for approximately 1,500 individuals charged in connection with the January 6 events. The refunds amount to $570 each for Ballenger and Price, who had been convicted on misdemeanor charges related to the insurrection.
Boasberg’s decision hinged on the timing of Trump’s pardon, which coincided with the pending appeals of Ballenger and Price before the D.C. Circuit Court. The judge noted that while a pardon alone does not automatically entitle a defendant to compensation, the vacatur of their convictions by the appellate court effectively nullified their previous criminal status. He emphasized that the legal principle of vacatur “wholly nullifie[s]” the convictions, thereby enabling the court to order the return of payments made by the defendants. This ruling not only clears the way for the refunds but also raises questions about the broader implications of pardons and the legal ramifications of vacated convictions, particularly concerning government liability and sovereign immunity.
The ruling has sparked varied reactions, particularly among political circles. Some Trump allies may view the decision as a victory against what they perceive as judicial overreach, while critics, including some Democrats, have condemned Trump’s pardons as a means of allowing participants in the Capitol riot to evade accountability for the significant damages caused, estimated at around $2.7 billion. The case exemplifies the ongoing legal and political debates surrounding the January 6 insurrection and the subsequent actions taken by the former president, highlighting the complex interplay between judicial decisions, executive power, and accountability in the wake of one of the most controversial events in recent American history.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg on Wednesday ordered two Jan. 6 defendants pardoned by President
Donald Trump
to be refunded in full for restitution payments made and fines incurred as part of their earlier criminal cases.Â
It was a reversal from just months earlier, when the same judge rejected their bid for repayment.
Boasberg used a memo order Wednesday to outline the fairly complex case history for Cynthia Ballenger and her husband, Christopher Price, both of whom had been tried and convicted on misdemeanor charges in connection with events of Jan. 6, 2021, and ordered to pay hundreds of dollars in assessment fees and restitution.
Boasberg’s order effectively
clears the way
for the government to refund them both in full.
JUDGE BOASBERG TO WEIGH TRUMP CONTEMPT IN DEPORTATION CASE THIS WEEK
The new decision, he said, is the result of an appeals court decision, as well as the timing of Trump’s pardon, which came at the same time as their case had been pending appeal before the D.C. Circuit.Â
“Having viewed the question afresh,
the court
now agrees with the defendants,” Boasberg said.
Both defendants, Ballenger and Price, had been in the process of appealing their convictions when Trump took office for a second time this year and issued a sweeping pardon for the roughly 1,500 Jan. 6 defendants.Â
In July, Boasberg rejected their request to be refunded the $570 each in restitution payments and other fees paid as a part of their convictions.
They later asked the court to reconsider, clearing the way for Wednesday’s new ruling.
Boasberg, in the new memo order, cited the same precedent from July, which states that a pardon alone is not sufficient to entitle a former defendant to any property or compensation lost as a result of the conviction.Â
“By itself, defendants’ pardon therefore cannot unlock the retroactive return of their payments that they ask for here,” he noted Wednesday, reiterating that the court’s ruling on this portion of the appeal remains unchanged.
Rather, he said, the reversal hinged on the fact that both their cases had been pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit when Trump granted the pardon, “thereby moot[ing] their appeals” and causing their convictions to be vacated completely by the higher court.
100 DAYS OF INJUNCTIONS, TRIALS AND ‘TEFLON DON’: TRUMP SECOND TERM MEETS ITS BIGGEST TESTS IN COURT
“So even if defendants’ pardon does not entitle them to refunds, the resulting vacatur of their convictions might,” Boasberg wrote, adding that it is true regardless of the reason for the vacatur. “In plain English, vacatur — unlike a pardon — ‘wholly nullifie[s]’ the vacated order and ‘wipes the slate clean.'”
The memo order goes one step further, however, as Boasberg considers not only whether a court can theoretically order repayments in the cases of vacated convictions, but if doing so is legally sound under the appropriations clause and with respect to issues of sovereign immunity, which protects the government from being sued without its consent.
TRUMP BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP FIGHT HEADS BACK TO SUPREME COURT AS NEW TERM BEGINS
Boasberg concluded that the court has the power to order such repayment.
“Because the court could order defendants to pay assessments and restitution, it can order those payments reversed,” he said. “Those are two sides of the same action, and sovereign immunity does not stand in the way.”
The new memo order is likely to be seen as a win by some Trump allies, who have sought to cast Boasberg and other judges who have blocked or paused some of Trump’s most sweeping actions as rogue or “activist” judges.
“Having viewed the question afresh, the Court now agrees with defendants,” Boasberg said Wednesday.Â
“When a conviction is vacated, the government must return any payments exacted because of it.”
Some Democrats in Congress sharply criticized Trump’s pardons earlier this year, with the late ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, Rep. Gerald Connolly, arguing in a
letter
that the pardons let Jan. 6 participants “off the hook” for an estimated $2.7 billion in estimated damages to the U.S. Capitol.
