A federal prosecutor has challenged a judge’s order barring a recently released Oath Keepers founder and key figure in the January 6 Capitol breach from entering Washington, D.C., without prior court approval. The prosecutor argued that the order conflicts with the commutation of the individual’s sentence.
The individual in question, Stewart Rhodes, was convicted of seditious conspiracy in connection with the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol. His 18-year prison sentence was recently commuted under an executive order issued earlier this week. The order pardoned and commuted sentences for certain offenses related to the events at or near the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
The acting U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C., has filed a request for the court to vacate the order restricting Rhodes’ access to Washington, D.C. According to the prosecutor, the commutation of Rhodes’ sentence also nullifies the terms of supervised release and probation that were part of his sentence. The prosecutor emphasized that the court no longer has the authority to enforce those terms, as they are no longer active.
Rhodes, a former Army paratrooper and Yale Law School graduate, founded the Oath Keepers in 2009. The group, known for its far-right and anti-government views, played a prominent role in the events of January 6, 2021. During his trial, evidence was presented that Rhodes and his co-defendants planned to disrupt the certification of the 2020 presidential election results. The plan included stockpiling weapons and attempting to secure a boat to cross the Potomac River to the Capitol.
The court previously described the plan as being directed by someone acting irrationally. The judge overseeing the case expressed shock at the actions and words presented during the trial, emphasizing the severity of the plot. Despite the convictions, the commutation of Rhodes’ sentence has led to his release and the dismissal of the original terms of his supervised release.
Following his release, Rhodes visited the Capitol and met with at least one lawmaker, defending his actions during the January 6 events. This visit prompted the judge to issue an order barring Rhodes from entering Washington, D.C., or the Capitol grounds without prior court approval. The order was intended to prevent further disruptions or potential threats to public safety.
The prosecutor’s filing, however, asserts that the executive order commuting Rhodes’ sentence effectively nullifies the court’s ability to impose such restrictions. The filing states that the court may no longer modify or enforce terms of supervised release, as those terms are no longer legally active.
The debate over the court’s authority in this matter highlights the broader implications of the executive order. The commutations have sparked controversy, with critics arguing that they undermine accountability for actions related to the January 6 events. Supporters, on the other hand, view the pardons as a necessary step toward reconciliation.
Rhodes’ release and subsequent actions have reignited discussions about the role of the Oath Keepers and similar groups in the January 6 riot. The group’s involvement in the events at the Capitol has drawn widespread condemnation, with many viewing their actions as a direct threat to democratic institutions.
The prosecutor’s push to vacate the judge’s order reflects the legal complexities surrounding the commutation of sentences and the enforcement of court-imposed restrictions. As the case continues to unfold, it raises important questions about the balance of power between the executive branch and the judiciary, as well as the broader implications for accountability and justice in the aftermath of January 6.
