Judge reverses course, grants Oath Keepers access to Capitol after Trump grants clemency

The federal judge who presided over the seditious conspiracy trial of far-right Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes rescinded an order that barred Rhodes and his co-defendants from traveling to Washington, D.C. The Justice Department had called on him to modify the sentences of the group members, who were serving years-long sentences after their convictions on crimes related to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol.

U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta said Monday, “[I]t would be improper for the court post-commutation to modify the original sentences,” but because President Trump’s clemency “can reasonably be read to extinguish enforcement of Defendants’ terms of supervised release,” the judge vacated his order.

Mehta on Friday had ordered the Oath Keeper members Rhodes, Kelly Meggs, Kenneth Harrelson, Jessica Watkins, Roberto Minuta, Edward Vallejo, David Moerchel, and Joseph Hacket to be barred from entering Washington, D.C., and the U.S. Capitol building “without first obtaining the permission from the Court.” 

The decision prompted staunch opposition from Washington, D.C. Acting U.S. Attorney Edward Martin, who wrote that the defendants, including Rhodes, were “no longer subject to the terms of supervised release and probation.” 

Mehta, in reversing his decision, said he ultimately found Martin’s interpretation of President Trump’s unconditional commutation  to be “reasonable.” 

Last week, as part of the mass clemency Mr. Trump extended to those tied to the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, he pardoned over 1,500 defendants, but opted to commute the sentences of Rhodes, his co-defendants and certain members of the Proud Boys group who were also charged with seditious conspiracy. Not all of those who received commutations were ultimately convicted of the seditious conspiracy charge. 

Days after receiving commutation, Rhodes and other Jan. 6 defendants appeared on Capitol Hill. 

The judge wrote that while the parties initially operated “as if the commutations addressed only the custodial portions of Defendants’ sentences but not their terms of supervised release,” upon further review and in response to objections from the defendants, he found that once a commutation is issued for a defendant, they are “required to take no further action to receive its benefit.”

“It is not for this court to divine why President Trump commuted Defendants’ sentences, or to assess whether it was sensible to do so,” Mehta added.