‘Unusual Order’ Barring DC Commuted J6 Defendants, Capitol Raises Constitutional Implications: Expert

A restraining order commuted the defendants on January 6 to enter Washington, DC, and the U.S. Capitol could mount constitutional challenges, a legal expert says.

In a filing Friday, Judge Amit P. Mehta specified the order applied to “defendants Stewart Rhodes, Kelly Meggs, Kenneth Harrelson, Jessica Watkins, Roberto Minuta, Edward Vallejo, David Moerchel and Joseph Hacket,” whose sentences be switched Pardons are not subject to the order.

Rhodes, founder of the Oath Keepers, was previously seen at the Longworth House office building on the Capitol complex. he was convicted of seditious conspiracy.

Pro-life protesters PARDONED BY TRUMP, FOX CONFIRMS

The order reads: “You must not enter the District of Columbia without first obtaining permission from the Court.” It adds, “You must not knowingly enter the United States Capitol building or the surrounding grounds known as Capitol Square.”

The filing says the order is effective as of noon Friday. Later that day, the Justice Department filed a motion to lift the order.

“If a judge were to rule that Jim Biden, Gen. Mark Milley, or anyone else were barred from visiting the U.S. capital, even after receiving a last-minute preemptive pardon from the former president, I think most of the Americans would object. The individuals referred to in our have had their sentences commuted to the motion: period, end of sentence,” Acting U.S. Attorney Edward Martin said in a statement.

“This is a very unusual order,” Jonathan Turley, a Fox News Media contributor and Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, told Fox News Digital. “The judge relies on the fact that the sentences were commuted, but the defendants did not receive the full pardons.”

JANUARY COMMUNITY 6 DEFENDANTS BANNED FROM DC, CAPITOL BUILDING BY FEDERAL JUDGE

Ron Coleman, an attorney with Dhillon Law Group, called the order “novel.”

“It is not clear what basis the court would have to assert jurisdiction over someone who has been pardoned for the conviction that is presumably the basis of the order or what the legal basis is for making Washington, DC, the type of national capital , like Moscow in the former USSR, that a citizen needs permission to enter,” Coleman said.

NANCY PELOSI CLAIMS JAN’S “SHAMEFUL” PARDONS. 6 DEFENDANTS

Turley said that while the new order could “prove a factor.” President Donald Trump extending a full pardon to those with commuted sentences, “it is unclear whether an order will cause Trump to reconsider his decision to offer only commutations.”

Turley noted the order could increase constitutional challengesincluding First Amendment implications.

“I think the court effectively prohibits these people from associating with or soliciting government officials without prior court approval,” Turley said. “That could raise questions under the First Amendment.

“I hope this will be challenged by these people.”

Trump pardoned nearly all of the Jan. 6 indictees earlier this week after promising to do so at his inaugural parade.

DOJ CONSIDERS CHARGING 200 MORE PEOPLE 4 YEARS AFTER JANUARY. 6 ATTACK CHAPTER

Trump signed on Monday releasing more than 1,500 people accused of crimes of the January 6, 2021 attack on the United States Capitol. The order required the Federal Bureau of Prisons to act immediately upon receiving the pardons.

Among those pardoned in his initial order was Enrique Tarrio, the former Proud Boys president who was facing a 22-year prison sentence for seditious conspiracy.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Fox News’ David Spunt, Diana Stancy and Jamie Joseph contributed to this report.