DOJ Asks Federal Court to Throw Out Seditious Conspiracy Convictions of Proud Boys and Oath Keepers Jan. 6 Leaders

The Justice Department on Tuesday asked a federal appeals court to throw out the seditious conspiracy convictions of leaders from the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers stemming from the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack — a stunning reversal that has drawn immediate condemnation from federal prosecutors, legal scholars, and Democratic lawmakers who called it an unprecedented act of political interference in the criminal justice system.

In filings submitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Justice Department attorneys argued that the convictions should be vacated, citing what they described as flaws in the original prosecutorial approach under the Biden administration. The motion covers some of the highest-profile January 6 prosecutions, including those of former Proud Boys national chairman Enrique Tarrio and Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, both of whom received lengthy prison sentences after juries found them guilty of coordinating attacks on the Capitol to prevent the certification of the 2020 presidential election.

Tarrio was sentenced to 22 years — the longest sentence handed down in any January 6 case — while Rhodes received 18 years. Both have maintained their innocence and filed appeals. Tuesday's DOJ motion goes far further than supporting a reduced sentence, asking that the underlying convictions themselves be dismissed entirely, which would effectively erase the legal findings of sedition against the groups' leaders.

The move shocked career federal prosecutors, several of whom have already resigned from the department in recent weeks in protest over what they described as political directives from Trump appointees. "This is not a legal judgment — it is a political one," said one former senior DOJ official who worked on the January 6 prosecutions, speaking on condition of anonymity. "These convictions were the product of years of careful investigation and were upheld through trial. To throw them out now is to rewrite what happened that day."

Democrats on Capitol Hill reacted with fury. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called the filing "a direct assault on accountability and the rule of law," and vowed to introduce legislation requiring congressional review of any DOJ decision to dismiss politically sensitive prosecutions. Representative Jamie Raskin, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, described the maneuver as "the president using the Justice Department as a shield for his allies and a sword against his enemies."

The DOJ filing also comes amid a broader pattern of the department seeking to revisit convictions and charges in other January 6 cases. Earlier this year, Attorney General Pam Bondi directed prosecutors to review hundreds of pending cases involving Capitol rioters, resulting in dozens of dropped charges and reduced sentences. Critics have argued the process has no legal basis and amounts to a wholesale pardon-by-proxy, bypassing the formal clemency process that would require public justification.

Legal analysts said the appellate court is not bound to accept the DOJ's motion. While courts typically defer to prosecutors seeking dismissal, the unusual circumstances — including the fact that the DOJ is asking to undo convictions it previously secured — may give judges grounds to push back. At least two legal advocacy organizations have already indicated they intend to file amicus briefs opposing the dismissal.

For families of police officers who were beaten during the Capitol attack, the news was devastating. "My husband was there defending this building, defending democracy, and they want to let the people who organized that attack just walk free," said one officer's spouse, who testified before the House January 6 committee in 2022. "It feels like everything we fought for doesn't matter."

The White House did not comment directly on the DOJ filing, but a spokesperson said President Trump "has always believed the January 6 prosecutions were politically motivated" and that the administration supports a full review. Attorneys for Tarrio and Rhodes have not yet filed a response with the appellate court.