BNCL Law Firm - Burris, Nisenbaum, Curry & Lacy

Trump’s January 6 Pardons: The Legal, Social, and Political Fallout

January 21, 2025

On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump returned to office and immediately fulfilled one of his most controversial campaign promises: issuing a sweeping pardon for individuals charged or convicted in the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack. With a stroke of his pen, Trump granted clemency to approximately 1,500 individuals, including those convicted of assaulting police officers, seditious conspiracy, and other serious crimes. For many, this action signals a dangerous precedent that threatens the foundations of American democracy and the rule of law.

At Burris, Nisenbaum, Curry, and Lacy (BNCL), we are deeply concerned about the implications of this decision. As a firm committed to civil rights and justice, we recognize that these actions not only impact the victims of January 6 but also raise critical questions about the future of accountability and governance in the United States.

The Scope and Impact of the Pardons

Trump’s executive order provided a “complete and unconditional pardon” to nearly all individuals involved in the Capitol riot. This included:

  1. Those Convicted of Violence: Individuals who attacked police officers or carried weapons into the Capitol.
  2. Organizers of the Riot: Key members of extremist groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, including those convicted of seditious conspiracy.
  3. Nonviolent Participants: Those charged with trespassing, disorderly conduct, or parading on Capitol grounds.

The decision also commuted the sentences of the remaining 14 individuals still serving lengthy prison terms. Trump directed the Department of Justice to dismiss pending indictments and immediately release incarcerated individuals.

For the victims of January 6, including the 140 police officers injured and the families of those who died, these pardons represent a profound betrayal. As Patrick Malone, an attorney representing several Capitol Police officers, stated: “For anyone who cares about truth and respect for law enforcement, these pardons are an unspeakable outrage.”

Setting the Stage for Autocracy

The decision to pardon the January 6 participants highlights a troubling trend in American governance: the increasing use of executive powers to shield political allies and undermine accountability. By framing the riot as a “patriotic” act rather than an insurrection, Trump has emboldened extremists and signaled that political violence in support of his administration will go unpunished.

This move also raises broader concerns about the erosion of democratic norms. With each administration rewriting laws, issuing sweeping pardons, or enacting policies that undermine the rule of law, the United States inches closer to autocracy. Actions like these set a dangerous precedent, where future leaders may feel empowered to use their office to shield allies and punish enemies, further polarizing the nation.

Legal and Social Ramifications

Undermining the Justice System

Trump’s pardons effectively nullify years of work by the Department of Justice, law enforcement, and courts to hold January 6 participants accountable. This undermines public trust in the judicial process and sends a message that crimes committed for political purposes are excusable.

Emboldening Extremists

Experts warn that these pardons will embolden far-right extremist groups, increasing the risk of future political violence. As Heidi Beirich, co-founder of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, noted, “They’re back, and their ranks are likely to grow.”

Dividing the Nation

Polls indicate that two-thirds of Americans oppose pardons for January 6 participants. However, the majority of Republicans and Trump voters support the move. This stark divide underscores the ongoing polarization in American society, with competing narratives about what January 6 represents.

Q&A: Understanding the Implications

1. Does a pardon erase a conviction?

No. While a pardon eliminates the legal penalties associated with a conviction (e.g., prison time, fines, or restrictions on voting and gun ownership), the conviction itself remains on record. Pardoned individuals are not considered innocent of their crimes.

2. Can Trump’s pardons be challenged?

Presidential pardons are largely immune from judicial review. However, Congress may investigate the circumstances surrounding these pardons, particularly if evidence emerges of corruption or abuse of power.

3. What does this mean for future prosecutions related to January 6?

The pardons effectively halt ongoing prosecutions and dismiss pending charges for those covered by the order. This could discourage law enforcement from pursuing similar cases in the future, fearing that their efforts will be nullified.

4. How do these pardons impact civil lawsuits against January 6 participants?

Civil lawsuits, such as those filed by injured Capitol Police officers, are not affected by pardons. Plaintiffs can still seek damages from individuals for their actions on January 6.

5. Does this pave the way for more political violence?

Many experts believe so. By pardoning individuals convicted of seditious conspiracy and other serious crimes, Trump has legitimized the use of violence to achieve political goals, potentially encouraging similar actions in the future.

BNCL’s Commitment to Justice

At BNCL, we understand the profound implications of Trump’s January 6 pardons. These actions threaten the rule of law, undermine accountability, and endanger the democratic principles that form the foundation of our nation. As civil rights advocates, we remain committed to holding those in power accountable and ensuring that justice prevails.

If you have questions about your rights or need legal assistance, contact BNCL today. Together, we can stand against actions that undermine democracy and work to build a more just and equitable society.

Case Results

Reginald Oliver v. City of Oakland

Oakland Police keep fabricating evidence and lying about minorities to arrest and prosecute them for supposed “gang” crimes, in violation of a settlement that prohibits …

Read More
Named plaintiff Reginald Oliver claims the Oakland PD continues violating the Constitution, in defiance of the settlement in Delphine Allen e al. v. City of Oakland, USDC No. C-00-4599 TEH, also known as "The Riders" litigation. Read Full Course
John Burris
Jane Smith v. City of Oakland

Racial profiling of Asian women by police officer resulting in a class action complaint for damages, declaratory and injunctive relief

Read More
Finding evidence about defendant's post-conviction parole violation unfairly prejudicial "since the jury could have construed that parole violation as character evidence in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)" Read Full Course
Rodney King
Rodney King v. City of Los Angeles

Rodney King has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to have Judge John G. Davies disqualified from presiding at the trial of …

Read More
Rodney King waited too long to file a malpractice suit against the first of 27 lawyers who represented him in connection with the infamous beating he suffered from Los Angeles police in 1991, this district’s Court of Appeal ruled yesterday. The ruling by Div. Two affirmed Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Ann Kough’s grant of summary judgment to Steven Lerman. King earlier this year dismissed his appeal of Kough’s ruling in favor of two other lawyers sued in the case, Federico Sayre and John Burris. Read Full Course
FEATURED News & Updates

Civil rights lawyer John Burris confronts police narratives

Written by Janie Har, AP researcher Rhonda Shafner also contributed to this report. To read on AP News click here OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) — Before …

Watch our video
Share via
Copy link