‘Extraordinary order’ barring J6 defendant from crossing Washington, Capitol raises constitutional implications: expert

The restraining order barred the defendants from entering from January 6 Washington, DC, and the US Capitol could launch constitutional challenges, says one legal expert.

In a filing Friday, Judge Amit P. Mehta specified the order applied to “defendants Stewart Rhodes, Kelly Meggs, Kenneth Harrelson, Jessica Watkins, Roberto Minuta, Edward Vallejo, David Moerchel and Joseph Hacket,” whose sentences were commuted. Pardoners are not subject to the order.

Rhodes, the founder of Oath Keepers, was previously seen at the Capitol complex’s Longworth House office building. He was convicted of seditious conspiracy.

TRUMP PARDED PRO-LIFE PROTESTERS, FOX CONFIRMED

The order says, “You may not knowingly enter the District of Columbia without prior permission of the court.” It added: “You shall not knowingly enter the United States Capitol Building or the surrounding grounds known as Capitol Square.”

The filing states that the order will take effect Friday at noon. Later that day, the Justice Department filed a motion seeking to quash the order.

“If a judge ruled that Jim Biden, General Mark Milley, or anyone else was barred from visiting America’s capital — even after receiving a last-minute preemptive pardon from the former president — I believe most Americans would object. The individuals listed in our the sentences are commuted — period, the end of the sentence,” Acting U.S. Attorney Edward Martin said in a statement.

“This is a very unusual order,” Jonathan Turley, a Fox News Media contributor and Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, told Fox News Digital. “The judge relies on the fact that the sentences were reduced, but the defendants did not receive full pardons.”

TRAVELED JANUARY. FEDERAL JUDGE FORBIDDEN 6 DEFENDANTS FROM ENTERING THE DC CAPITOL BUILDING

Ron Coleman, of counsel at Dhillon Law Group, called the order “novel.”

“It is unclear on what basis a court would have jurisdiction over someone pardoned for a conviction that is likely the basis for a warrant or what the legal basis is to make Washington, DC the national capital like Moscow in the old USSR, a citizen needs permission to enter Coleman said.

NANCY PELOSI CRITICIZES TRUMP’S ‘SHAMEFUL’ PARDONS JAN. 6 ACCUSED

Turley said that while the new order “could be a factor” in the President Donald Trump extending full pardons to those with commuted sentences, “it is unclear whether the order will cause Trump to reconsider his decision to offer only commuted sentences.”

Turley noted that the order could increase constitutional challengesincluding First Amendment implications.

“I think the court is effectively barring these individuals from being able to band together or petition government officials without first getting the court’s approval,” Turley said. “That could raise questions under the First Amendment.

“I expect those individuals to challenge that.”

Trump earlier this week pardoned nearly all of the defendants on Jan. 6 after promising to do so at his inauguration parade.

DOJ IS CONSIDERING CHARGING ANOTHER 200 PEOPLE 4 YEARS AFTER JANUARY. 6 ATTACK ON THE CAPITOL

Trump signed on Monday freeing more than 1,500 people accused of crimes of January 6, 2021, the attack on the US Capitol. The order asks the Federal Bureau of Prisons to act immediately upon receiving the pardon.

Among those pardoned in his first order was Enrique Tarrio, the former president of the Proud Boys who faced 22 years in prison for conspiracy to rebel.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Fox News’ David Spunt, Diana Stancy and Jamie Joseph contributed to this report.