A federal judge has granted permission for Eric Peterson, a military veteran from Missouri who participated in the January 6th Capitol riot, to attend the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump on January 20, 2025. Peterson, who pleaded guilty to entering the Capitol during the riot, was allowed to travel to Washington, D.C., after U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan approved his request on December 19, 2024. The judge ruled that Peterson could attend the event while maintaining the conditions of his probation, including restrictions on his travel within the Kansas City Metropolitan area.
Peterson’s legal team argued that he was not involved in the violent actions or property damage that occurred during the riot. Instead, Peterson was accused of entering and remaining in the Capitol for a brief period, approximately eight minutes, without authorization. His lawyer emphasized that Peterson, a business owner and military veteran with no prior criminal history, posed no threat to public safety and had no history of violence. Prosecutors did not object to his request, and Judge Chutkan accepted the assessment, granting him permission to travel.
This decision has raised questions as other January 6th defendants, including some with more severe charges, have also sought permission to attend the inauguration. One such individual, Russell Taylor from California, had requested similar approval from the court. Taylor, who pleaded guilty to obstruction of an official proceeding and is currently on probation, had previously been involved in the riot with weapons such as a knife and bear spray. His request to attend the inauguration, however, faced opposition from prosecutors, who pointed out the violent nature of his actions during the Capitol breach.
Taylor’s legal team had argued that he had demonstrated compliance with court orders and was trustworthy, citing support from Mormon lawmakers in Utah. They also noted that he was invited by a former congressman to attend the event with his family. However, prosecutors contended that Taylor’s previous actions, including his involvement in organizing a group of rioters and encouraging violence, made him a risk if allowed to return to Washington, D.C., particularly given the connection to the Capitol and the violent events that transpired there.
Similarly, Cindy Young, another January 6th defendant, filed a motion to attend the inauguration, claiming that she posed no threat to the community. Young had been convicted of multiple misdemeanors for her role in overwhelming officers during the riot. Her request, like Taylor’s, was opposed by prosecutors, who argued that her actions on January 6th, along with her failure to fully acknowledge the seriousness of her conduct, made her a potential danger to the D.C. community. The prosecution also pointed out that Young’s probation included a restriction on entering Washington, D.C., without permission.
The Department of Justice raised concerns about the potential risks posed by these individuals attending the inauguration, citing the connection to the Capitol riot and the violent behavior exhibited by many of the rioters. The prosecution’s arguments centered on the idea that allowing individuals with such histories to return to Washington, D.C., could undermine the seriousness of their offenses and present a danger to the public.
In contrast to Peterson’s case, where there was no significant opposition, Taylor and Young’s requests face significant scrutiny. Both defendants had been involved in different aspects of the riot, with Taylor actively participating in organizing a group of rioters and Young taking part in overwhelming law enforcement officers. The differing levels of involvement and the nature of their offenses have led to varying degrees of approval for their requests to attend the inauguration.
As of now, Peterson is the only defendant granted permission to attend the event, while the fate of others, like Taylor and Young, remains uncertain. The final decisions will likely depend on the judges’ assessments of the risks involved and whether the individuals’ actions during the Capitol riot were serious enough to warrant restrictions on their movements, particularly in relation to an event like the inauguration of a president they had once attempted to disrupt.
