DOJ seeks dismissal of Jan. 6 seditious conspiracy convictions

On Tuesday, April 14, the Justice Department filed a motion asking a federal court to erase the convictions of twelve members from the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers—men prosecutors had identified as organizers and leaders of the January 6 Capitol attack. The request marks a dramatic reversal in the government's own legal position, coming more than a year after these same prosecutors secured guilty verdicts on seditious conspiracy charges, the most serious allegations brought against anyone involved in the riot.

The twelve men named in the filing include Stewart Rhodes, the founder of the Oath Keepers militia, who had been sentenced to eighteen years in prison. Prosecutors had argued that Rhodes and his associates "began plotting to oppose by force the lawful transfer of presidential power" following the 2020 election. Alongside Rhodes are four prominent Proud Boys leaders: Ethan Nordean, Zachary Rehl, Dominic Pezzola, and Joseph Biggs, all of whom were also convicted of seditious conspiracy. These convictions represented the culmination of years of investigation and trial work by federal prosecutors.

What changed was not the facts of the case or new evidence, but rather the political landscape. After returning to office in January 2025, President Trump issued a sweeping clemency action affecting more than one thousand people convicted in connection with January 6. For most of those individuals, Trump granted full pardons, erasing both their sentences and their convictions. For this particular group of twelve, however, the President chose a different path: he commuted their sentences to time served, meaning they were released from prison but their convictions remained on the record. The distinction mattered legally, even if the practical effect was immediate freedom.

Now the Justice Department has moved to eliminate even that remaining conviction. In the filing submitted to federal appeals courts, Assistant U.S. Attorney Daniel Lenerz wrote that "the United States has determined in its prosecutorial discretion that dismissal of this criminal case is in the interests of justice." The language is spare and bureaucratic, offering no explanation for why the government's view of justice had shifted so fundamentally from the moment it secured guilty verdicts to the present day.

The move drew sharp criticism from Greg Rosen, who until recently served as the chief of the Justice Department's Capitol Siege Section—the very unit that had prosecuted these cases. Speaking to CBS News, Rosen characterized the dismissal request as evidence of a troubling principle now embedded in the department's work. "It's a reminder of what drove the pardons in the first place—the political violence is acceptable as long as your politics align," he said. "And it's a continuing and sad commentary on the current state of the department." His words captured the central tension: the same institution that had argued these men posed a threat to the constitutional order was now asking courts to pretend the convictions had never happened.

The appeals process will now determine whether federal judges accept the government's request. If they do, the convictions will be vacated and the cases dismissed entirely. If they decline, the convictions will stand even though the men are free. Either way, the episode has already reshaped how seditious conspiracy—a charge rarely used in American law—will be understood going forward. What prosecutors once framed as a grave threat to the republic has become, in the government's own words, a matter best resolved by erasing the record altogether.