U.S. District Judge James Boasberg on Wednesday ordered the federal government to refund two Jan. 6 defendants\u2014both pardoned by President Donald Trump\u2014for restitution payments and fines they paid in their earlier criminal cases, marking a reversal from the judge\u2019s decision just months ago.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In a memo order, Boasberg detailed the legal path that led to the outcome for Cynthia Ballenger and her husband, Christopher Price. The couple was tried and convicted on misdemeanor charges tied to the events of Jan. 6, 2021, and ordered to pay hundreds of dollars in assessment fees and restitution. Boasberg\u2019s order \u201cclears the way\u201d for both to be refunded in full.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The shift, Boasberg wrote, stems from a key procedural development: an appeals-court decision and the timing of Trump\u2019s pardon, which was issued while their case was pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cHaving viewed the question afresh, the court now agrees with the defendants,\u201d Boasberg said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Ballenger and Price were actively appealing their convictions when Trump returned to office for a second term and issued a sweeping pardon covering roughly 1,500 Jan. 6 defendants. After the pardon, they sought to recover the $570 each they had already paid in restitution and fees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In July, Boasberg denied that request, relying on precedent that a pardon alone does not automatically entitle a defendant to recover money or property lost because of a conviction. He reiterated that point again in Wednesday\u2019s order:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cBy itself, defendants\u2019 pardon therefore cannot unlock the retroactive return of their payments that they ask for here,\u201d he wrote, emphasizing that his earlier reasoning on this question \u201cremains unchanged.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Instead, he explained, the decisive factor was what happened next at the appellate level. Because the cases were pending when Trump granted the pardon, the pardon effectively mooted their appeals and led the D.C. Circuit to vacate their convictions altogether\u2014meaning the convictions were treated as void.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cSo even if defendants\u2019 pardon does not entitle them to refunds, the resulting vacatur of their convictions might,\u201d Boasberg wrote. \u201cIn plain English, vacatur \u2014 unlike a pardon \u2014 \u2018wholly nullifie[s]\u2019 the vacated order and \u2018wipes the slate clean.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Why the refund question still mattered legally<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Boasberg went beyond the basic \u201crefund or not\u201d question and addressed two issues often raised when courts order the federal government to pay money: the Appropriations Clause (which generally requires congressional authorization before money is paid out) and sovereign immunity (the principle that the government cannot be sued without consent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
He concluded the court still has the authority to reverse the payments in these circumstances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cBecause the court could order defendants to pay assessments and restitution, it can order those payments reversed,\u201d he said. \u201cThose are two sides of the same action, and sovereign immunity does not stand in the way.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
He summed up the principle this way: \u201cWhen a conviction is vacated, the government must return any payments exacted because of it.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Political and public reaction<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The order is likely to resonate beyond the courtroom. Many Trump allies have argued that the Justice Department\u2019s Jan. 6 prosecutions were overbroad, particularly for misdemeanor cases, and that defendants should not continue to bear financial penalties once their convictions are wiped away.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
At the same time, Democrats have sharply criticized Trump\u2019s pardons. Earlier this year, the late ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, Rep. Gerald Connolly, argued in a letter that the pardons let Jan. 6 participants \u201coff the hook\u201d for an estimated $2.7 billion in estimated damages to the U.S. Capitol.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n