Federal judge rejects Trump’s pardon expansion, orders Kentucky man to serve five-year gun sentence

Washington D.C. – A federal judge has denied the Justice Department’s attempt to apply former President Donald Trump’s blanket pardon for participants in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot to an unrelated gun conviction, marking the first judicial rejection of the department’s new interpretation of Trump’s clemency.

U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, a Trump appointee, ruled Thursday night that the Justice Department’s stance “contradicts” the clear language of Trump’s executive order, which granted pardons to individuals convicted of crimes “related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.”

The case involved Dan Wilson, a Kentucky man who was charged in connection with the riot but was later convicted on separate gun charges after authorities discovered illegal firearms at his home during the investigation. Friedrich had previously dismissed his Jan. 6-related charges but sentenced him to five years in prison for unlawful possession of weapons. Wilson argued that Trump’s pardon should cover his gun conviction as well, a position the Justice Department surprisingly supported after reversing its initial stance on the scope of the clemency.

“To interpret the Presidential Pardon to apply to any type of offense — no matter when or where that offense was committed — simply because evidence of that offense was uncovered incident to a January 6-related search warrant would ‘defy rationality,’” Friedrich wrote in her ruling.

Trump’s Jan. 6 pardon, issued on his first day back in office, erased the convictions of more than 1,000 rioters and ordered the dismissal of hundreds of pending cases. Initially, prosecutors argued that the clemency only applied to crimes directly tied to the attack on the Capitol. However, in recent weeks, under pressure from advocates for Jan. 6 defendants, the department reversed course. Officials now claim that Trump’s intention was to extend the pardon to any crimes uncovered during the riot-related investigations, including gun and explosives charges, possession of classified materials, and domestic violence-related firearm offenses.

The Justice Department’s shift has faced scrutiny from multiple federal judges and appeals court panels. In Tennessee, a judge recently rejected a defendant’s effort to extend the pardon to a conspiracy charge for plotting to kill FBI agents investigating the riot. The DOJ successfully opposed that effort, raising questions about how prosecutors were deciding which unrelated crimes were covered by the clemency.

Friedrich was particularly skeptical of the Justice Department’s evolving position. She pointed to cases where prosecutors still opposed applying the pardon to unrelated charges, such as a North Carolina defendant accused of possessing child pornography. Friedrich noted that the department’s arguments for selectively applying Trump’s pardon were inconsistent and lacking a “cogent” explanation.

Wilson has been granted the right to appeal Friedrich’s decision to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, ensuring the legal battle over the scope of Trump’s Jan. 6 pardon will continue. Meanwhile, Trump himself has not clarified or expanded on his original clemency order, despite the controversy surrounding its interpretation.

The case is expected to set a precedent for how courts handle the Justice Department’s attempts to extend Trump’s Jan. 6 pardons beyond the events of that day.