
Here we go again—another legal circus act. A Florida man charged with unlawfully “parading” during the Jan. 6 Capitol riot is now asking the Supreme Court to hear his appeal. If the justices take this case, it could impact over 400 similar cases. Brace yourselves, folks; this could get messy.
Last month, the Supreme Court already dealt a blow to the Justice Department by narrowing the scope of an obstruction statute used to charge over 120 defendants from the Jan. 6 riot. And now, 57-year-old John Nassif is trying to appeal his conviction on a more common charge: parading and picketing inside the Capitol. Isn’t that something?
Nassif, a real overachiever in the misdemeanor department, was also convicted of disorderly and disruptive conduct in a private building and violent entry into the Capitol. Despite prosecutors asking for 10 to 16 months in prison, he got off with just seven months and is already free. His public defenders are now raising questions about the application of Section 5104(e)(2)(G), which makes it a crime to knowingly “parade, demonstrate, or picket in any of the Capitol Buildings.”
U.S. District Judge John Bates, appointed by President George W. Bush, denied Nassif’s pretrial effort to dismiss the parading charge. He reasoned that the Capitol is a “nonpublic forum” where the government can limit First Amendment activities as long as those restrictions are reasonable and viewpoint-neutral. That makes sense.
But Nassif’s legal team isn’t giving up. When the case reached the U.S. District Court for the D.C. Circuit, a panel of judges appointed by Presidents Obama and Biden found that Nassif’s counsel wrongly argued that the parading statute was so unclear it couldn’t be applied to anyone, including Nassif. Talk about a swing and a miss.
Nassif’s petition claims there’s a conflict between how the D.C. Circuit and the D.C. Court of Appeals view demonstrations in the Capitol. The D.C. Court of Appeals has held that the Capitol Rotunda is a public forum, requiring speech restrictions to be narrowly tailored. Meanwhile, the D.C. Circuit classifies the Capitol Buildings as nonpublic forums, allowing broader restrictions.
The D.C. Circuit cited cases like Bynum v. U.S. Capitol Police Board (2000) and Lederman v. United States (2002) to support its position. These cases and Supreme Court rulings in Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (1985) and United States v. Kokinda (1990) allow for reasonable, viewpoint-neutral restrictions to maintain order in the Capitol because we need a little order in the halls of government.
On the flip side, the D.C. Court of Appeals, in cases like Wheelock v. United States (1988) and Hasty v. United States (1995), has determined that peaceful demonstrations should be protected as long as they don’t significantly disrupt congressional activities. Sounds reasonable enough.
The Supreme Court needs approval from four out of nine justices to hear Nassif’s case. It might take months for them to decide whether to take it up. Legal experts are skeptical, especially after the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Fischer. That ruling raised the burden of proof for the DOJ to prosecute obstruction of an official proceeding. Let’s hope the justices have bigger fish to fry.
Over 1,450 people have been charged in connection with the Jan. 6 riot, with the illegal parading and picketing misdemeanor being the most common charge. According to the DOJ, more than 460 individuals are facing such charges. It’s a staggering number, reflecting the chaos of that day.
So here we are, waiting to see if the Supreme Court will turn this legal situation into an even bigger spectacle. One thing’s for sure: this parade of legal battles is far from over.