A federal judge signed off on the Justice Department's motion to dismiss the convictions of four Proud Boys members for their roles in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, but made clear he wasn't happy about it. U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly granted the dismissal on Friday while issuing a pointed memorandum that stopped just short of open protest.
The ruling wipes the records of Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl, and Dominic Pezzola. Three of the four, Nordean, Biggs, and Rehl, were convicted in 2023 of seditious conspiracy and sentenced to lengthy prison terms. Pezzola was acquitted of seditious conspiracy but convicted of multiple other felonies, including assaulting police officers, robbery involving government property, and obstruction. Video showed Pezzola smashing a Capitol window with a riot shield.
The dismissal was entered with prejudice, meaning the federal government can never bring the same charges again. That distinction matters. President Trump had already commuted the four men's sentences to time served in January 2025, but their felony convictions remained on the books. Now those convictions are gone entirely.
Kelly, in his written opinion, left no ambiguity about why the Justice Department sought the dismissal. As CBS News reported:
"There is little mystery about why the Government is moving to dismiss this case, or whether dismissal is in fact what the Executive seeks. President Trump's views about the prosecution of those who attacked the U.S. Capitol on January 6, whether those views are based on fact or fiction, are well known, as is his intention to extend clemency to them through the Executive Order."
That language, "whether those views are based on fact or fiction", is an unusual editorial jab from a federal judge in a ruling that otherwise acknowledges the executive branch's constitutional authority over prosecutorial decisions. Kelly went further, writing that "it is unclear what the Court would do with more detailed information about the Government's reasons for seeking to dismiss" and that "it is hard to see how any course other than granting the motion in full could make practical sense."
The judge also added a separation-of-powers caveat. As the Washington Examiner reported, Kelly stated: "Because the decisions to issue the Executive Order and to abandon this prosecution... are solely the Executive's, no one should mistake the Court's granting the Government's motion for its agreement with those decisions."
In other words: I don't agree, but I can't stop it.
The legal sequence here moved in stages. Immediately after taking office in January 2025, Trump pardoned approximately 1,500 people convicted for their actions on January 6. But he handled 14 individuals differently, commuting their sentences to time served while leaving their convictions intact. Nordean, Biggs, Rehl, and Pezzola were among that group of 14.
Then in April, the Justice Department moved to vacate the convictions of about a dozen former Proud Boys and Oath Keepers members, most of whom had been convicted of seditious conspiracy. The DOJ's filing went well beyond what the commutations had accomplished. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia stated, as Fox News reported, that "in the Executive Branch's view, it is not in the interests of justice to continue to prosecute this case or the cases of other, similarly situated defendants."
In May, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit approved the dismissal and sent the case back down to Judge Kelly. Friday's ruling completed the process at the district court level.
The Justice Department's own prior characterization of these defendants stands in stark contrast to its current posture. DOJ previously stated that Nordean and Pezzola "participated in every consequential breach at the Capitol," leading a group of Proud Boys onto the Capitol grounds, resulting in the dismantling of barricades, breaching of the Capitol building, assaults on police, and destruction of property.
Nordean received an 18-year sentence, according to Fox News. Rehl was the former leader of the Philadelphia chapter of the Proud Boys. All four men served time before their sentences were commuted.
The DOJ's reversal is complete. The same department that secured seditious conspiracy convictions, among the most serious charges brought against any January 6 defendants, now moved to erase those convictions from the record permanently.
This case does not exist in isolation. The April DOJ motion covered about a dozen former members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, including Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, who had been sentenced to 18 years and had not received a pardon. The Associated Press reported that the broader effort seeks to fully erase the convictions of key figures from both organizations. The status of the remaining cases beyond Friday's four dismissals remains unclear.
Former Proud Boys chairman Enrique Tarrio, who was not among the four addressed Friday, had already received a full pardon from Trump, the Washington Examiner reported.
The dismissals have drawn sharply divided responses. Former Metropolitan Police Officer Michael Fanone, who was injured during the Capitol breach, told the AP: "I would remind Americans that these were traitors to this country. They planned, incited and carried out an insurrection."
On the other side, Nicholas Smith, attorney for Ethan Nordean, offered a different frame. As the AP reported, Smith said: "We don't want a precedent that says that any physical confrontation between protesters and law enforcement means a crime akin to treason, such as seditious conspiracy."
That legal argument, that the seditious conspiracy statute was stretched beyond its proper application, has been a consistent thread in the defense of January 6 defendants. The Trump administration's decision to vacate these convictions rather than simply commute sentences suggests it shares that view at the policy level.
Judge Kelly's memorandum walks a careful constitutional line. He acknowledged the executive branch's "primacy in criminal charging decisions" as "long settled" law. He granted the motion in full. But he went out of his way to note that his ruling should not be read as endorsement.
The practical effect is straightforward. Four men convicted of some of the most serious charges arising from January 6 now have clean federal records on those counts. The "with prejudice" designation means no future administration can revisit the charges. Whatever one thinks of the original prosecutions or the subsequent clemency, this chapter is closed.
CBS News reported it had reached out to the Justice Department for comment. As of the ruling, no DOJ response was noted.
Just The News noted that the dismissals go beyond Trump's earlier commutations by fully erasing the convictions themselves, a distinction that carries real consequences for the defendants' future legal standing, employment prospects, and civil rights.
The open questions are significant. What happens to the remaining Proud Boys and Oath Keepers members covered by the April DOJ motion? Will the same "with prejudice" framework apply across the board? And does the DOJ's reversal, from aggressive prosecution under one administration to full erasure under the next, create lasting uncertainty about the durability of politically charged federal cases?
Judge Kelly's memorandum, for all its carefully hedged disagreement, concedes the core constitutional point: the executive branch decides whom to prosecute. That authority doesn't vanish because a judge finds the decision distasteful. Kelly understood that, even as he made sure the record reflected his displeasure.
The executive branch owns its charging decisions. It also owns the consequences of reversing them, and the message that reversal sends about what the law means when the political winds shift.
