The Supreme Court docket stated Tuesday it is not going to take into account a problem to a misdemeanor cost used in opposition to scores of Jan. 6, 2021, rioters for unlawfully “parading” within the Capitol.
Florida native John Nassif was convicted of 4 misdemeanor counts in reference to the Capitol riot and sentenced to seven months in jail, which he has already served. Federal prosecutors stated he led a call-and-response chant, yelling, “Whose house? Our house!” earlier than gaining entry into the Capitol and gesturing to others to affix him there.
He appealed a type of convictions on a cost that bars “parading, demonstrating, or picketing” in any of the Capitol buildings. A whole lot of Jan. 6 rioters face the misdemeanor rely, making it among the many most typical prices.
In Nassif’s petition to the justices, he requested them to find out whether or not the statute, Part 5104(e)(2)(G), is “unconstitutionally overbroad.”
“Although this case arises out of the events of January 6, 2021, 5104(e)(2)(G) criminalizes protected expression that bears no resemblance to the conduct that has made that day infamous,” Melissa Fussell, Nassif’s federal defender, wrote to the justices.
Fussell pointed to congressional data indicating that the regulation, handed in 1967 on the peak of the Civil Rights Motion, was motivated by a “desire to silence particular viewpoints.”
“The overbreadth of the law was a concern from the start,” Fussell wrote, noting one then-lawmaker’s warning that the measure was akin to “using a shotgun to eliminate a gnat.”
“Nevertheless, the bill became law,” she stated.
Solicitor Common Elizabeth Prelogar cited a decrease court docket’s ruling that the Capitol is a “nonpublic forum” the place the federal government might restrict First Modification actions if these restrictions are “reasonable in light of the purpose of the forum and are viewpoint neutral.” The choice was affirmed by a federal appeals court docket.
The rely has drawn criticism from different views, together with a federal decide who chastised the federal government for “fostering confusion” concerning the significance of the riot by providing Jan. 6 defendants plea offers on the cost utilizing language that will give the impression a lawful protest was “just in the wrong place.”
“This is not legitimate political discourse,” U.S. District Choose Beryl Howell stated in 2022, in line with The Nationwide Regulation Journal. “This was not a protest.”
Greater than 1,500 rioters have been charged in reference to the Capitol assault.
