Several Jan. 6 defendants have recently had their requests to attend the inauguration of Donald Trump rejected by U.S. District Court judges, citing concerns over safety and appropriateness. These individuals, who were involved in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, include Russell Taylor, Christopher Belliveau, and Thomas Eugene Tatum. Each of them sought permission to attend the inauguration on January 20, 2025, but their requests were denied, with judges emphasizing the gravity of their past actions and the potential risks of allowing them to return to Washington.
Russell Taylor, a California resident who pleaded guilty to obstruction of an official proceeding, was denied by U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth. Taylor had attempted to enlist the help of Mormon lawmakers to secure permission for his trip. Despite his cooperation with authorities, including testifying against members of the extremist Three Percenters militia group, the judge found that Taylor’s request was inappropriate. Lamberth noted that attending the inauguration, which celebrates the peaceful transfer of power, was a privilege not suited for someone who had been involved in the insurrection, especially given Taylor’s actions on January 6, which included carrying weapons and threatening police officers.
Christopher Belliveau, a Maine resident who has pleaded not guilty to charges related to his role in the Capitol attack, also had his request denied by U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly. Belliveau argued that his lack of a violent past warranted a modification of his release conditions, but prosecutors pointed out that his actions on January 6, including engaging in violence against Capitol Police officers, made his return to Washington a security concern.
Thomas Eugene Tatum, from Mississippi, was denied by U.S. District Judge John Bates. Tatum, who faces charges for felony civil disorder and other offenses related to the January 6 attack, had requested to attend as a “journalist.” He had previously attended congressional hearings and court proceedings without issue, but the judge noted the severity of the charges against him, which involved physical violence and the use of dangerous weapons.
Judges in each case emphasized that granting permission to attend the inauguration would not only be unsafe but would also send the wrong message. The Justice Department argued that allowing these individuals to return to Washington could place Capitol Police officers at risk and undermine the integrity of the event. In Taylor’s case, Judge Lamberth acknowledged his cooperation with authorities but emphasized that his good conduct on probation did not diminish the seriousness of his actions on January 6. The judge also pointed out that Taylor’s cooperation had already been considered during sentencing, which was unusually lenient compared to others involved in the insurrection.
The decisions reflect a broader concern among the judiciary about the safety and symbolism of allowing individuals who participated in the Capitol attack to attend an event celebrating the peaceful transfer of power. The judges made it clear that the defendants’ involvement in the insurrection and the potential risks associated with their presence at the inauguration outweighed any positive aspects of their character or behavior since the attack.
These rulings highlight the ongoing legal consequences for those involved in the January 6 attack and underscore the importance of upholding the principles of democracy and the rule of law. As the legal process continues for other defendants, it remains clear that actions taken on January 6 will continue to have significant ramifications for those involved.
