The Supreme Court rejected the appeal of a January 6th defendant who challenged his conviction for “parading, picketing, and demonstrating” at the Capitol.
The misdemeanor charge is one of the most common in hundreds of January 6th cases. John Nassif, the defendant who filed the appeal, was sentenced to seven months in prison on four misdemeanor convictions, including parading and violent entry, the Washington Examiner reported.
Nassif's public defenders said he has a First Amendment right to demonstrate at the Capitol, but lower courts have disagreed.
According to Nassif's defenders, he was inside the Capitol briefly, for about 10 minutes, and he only entered an hour after the initial, violent breach of the building.
His defenders say the parading charge criminalizes First Amendment expression that bears no comparison to the violent conduct of some other January 6th defendants and is "in no way disruptive."
Lower courts, including the federal appeals court of D.C., have ruled that "The People's House" is not a forum for the public to air grievances with their government, despite what some may think.
“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,” a three-judge panel of the appeals court said.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected Nassif's appeal, sparing the DOJ a potentially massive setback in hundreds of cases. But it may be a temporary victory.
President-elect Donald Trump has often described the January 6th participants as "patriots" who have been treated unfairly, and he has promised to pardon many of them.
Hundreds of January 6th defendants have been charged with assaulting police, but many others did not spend much time inside the Capitol or otherwise remained peaceful.
"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," Trump said previously.
The Supreme Court rebuked the Justice Department earlier this year for its sweeping interpretation of a felony obstruction law that prosecutors used in hundreds of January 6th cases.
The justices expressed concern in that case, Fischer v. United States, about overzealous prosecution chilling the right to protest.
The court held that the DOJ requires evidence of physical destruction of documents to bring charges for obstruction of an official proceeding, which had never been used against protesters before January 6th.
