Trump's Pardons for Jan. 6 Rioters Prompt Warnings about Legal Precedent

WASHINGTON -- Donald Trump’s sweeping pardons on the first day of his new presidency this week for everyone accused of crimes in the Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the Capitol is making his critics wonder whether he is setting a troublesome legal precedent.

Everyone convicted or awaiting trial on charges related to the riot was set free by Trump’s executive order. It covered more than 1,500 people after the largest investigation in Justice Department history.

It included commuting the sentences of 14 of the most extremist members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers militia. Most of them were convicted of seditious conspiracy, along with crimes of violence against police.

A pardon restores all rights to the accused. A commutation ends their criminal sentences but does not restore all rights, such as gun ownership.

Trump said the pardons would end “a grave national injustice that has been perpetrated upon the American people over the last four years.”

As Trump continued signing executive orders Tuesday expected to grow to around 100 in the coming days, the American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement it is prepared to oppose him with legal action.

“While we know this president will issue orders with real, dire consequences on people here and abroad, many of his declarations do not and cannot change the law but instead are designed to engender chaos and confusion,” the ACLU said.

He issued more executive orders on his first day since Franklin Roosevelt in 1937. In addition to the pardons for Jan. 6 rioters, they covered environmental policy, immigration, the federal workforce and civil rights.

“The President's actions are an outrageous insult to our justice system and the heroes who suffered physical scars and emotional trauma as they protected the Capitol, the Congress and the Constitution,” former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a post on X. “It is shameful that the President has decided to make one of his top priorities the abandonment and betrayal of police officers who put their lives on the line to stop an attempt to subvert the peaceful transfer of power.”

Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer (N.Y.) said in a statement, “Donald Trump is ushering in a Golden Age for people that break the law and attempt to overthrow the government.”

The National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys described Trump’s pardons as part of a potentially dangerous trend.

There is no question about the president’s constitutional authority to grant pardons but “we are concerned it is increasingly becoming abused for political purposes and to usurp the legislative process to affect policy outcomes not enshrined in law,” said Steve Wasserman, president of the Washington, D.C.-based association.

Historically, presidential pardons were granted only in cases of clear injustice. They were granted after being vetted through the Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney.

“Unfortunately, the latest rounds of presidential pardons do not meet this standard,” Wasserman said.

Trump’s supporters said the pardons were an effort at reconciliation for the nation by putting an unfortunate incident in the past.

An attorney for Enrique Tarrio, the former Proud Boys national chairman who was serving a 22- year sentence for seditious conspiracy, said, “This marks a pivotal moment in our client’s life, and it symbolizes a turning point for our nation. We are optimistic for the future, as we now turn the page on this chapter, embracing new possibilities and opportunities.”?

Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, who was among the first Jan. 6 prisoners released, greeted other prisoners as they were released Tuesday from the District of Columbia’s Central Detention Facility.

He continued to insist that he and other persons accused in the Jan. 6 riot were political prisoners rather than being prosecuted for true crimes.

“They’re not going to get a fair trial,” he said. “That’s on the DOJ (Justice Department).”

Rhodes was serving an 18-year sentence for seditious conspiracy.

There were 467 rioters sentenced to periods of incarceration, according to the Justice Department. The last of them who remain in jail were expected to be released by Wednesday.

For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: [email protected] or phone: 202-479-7240.

TikTok Shuts Down Only Briefly After Intervention from Trump

Social media giant TikTok shut down for only hours Sunday after losing in a Supreme Court judgment but restored service later in the day with help from newly-inaugurated President Donald Trump.

Congress wanted the short-form video app to halt service or sell to U.S. buyers by Sunday out of concern its Chinese parent company could tap into users’ data to spy on Americans.

The law Congress approved last year that set the deadline was upheld in a Supreme Court ruling last week.

Trump disagreed. He issued an executive order restoring the service used by 170 million Americans.

"Frankly, we have no choice. We have to save it," Trump said at a political rally Sunday.

Rather than a complete divestiture preferred by Congress, he said he would be satisfied with 50 percent American ownership. He also said he believed any national security concerns about Chinese influence could be resolved.

“As of today, TikTok is back,” Trump said at what he called his “victory rally.” It was part of a three-day inauguration celebration.

One of Trump’s guests of honor during the inauguration inside the Capitol was TikTok chief executive officer Shou Zi Chew.

Trump’s announcement that he would “save” TikTok drew rare opposition from some of his fellow Republicans.

Republican senators Tom Cotton and Pete Ricketts said in a joint statement, "Now that the law has taken effect, there is no legal basis for any kind of 'extension' of its effective date. For TikTok to come back online in the future, ByteDance must agree to a sale that satisfies the law's qualified-divestiture requirements by severing all ties between TikTok and Communist China."

ByteDance refers to TikTok’s China-based parent company. TikTok officials told congressional investigators that the American affiliate operates independently of ByteDance’s control.

The Supreme Court echoed the skepticism of the majority of Congress in its ruling last week that said, “ByteDance Ltd. is subject to Chinese laws that require it to 'assist or cooperate’ with the Chinese Government’s ‘intelligence work’ and to ensure that the Chinese Government has ‘the power to access and control private data’ the company holds.”

Trump spoke with Chinese President Xi Jinping Friday about relations between the United States and China. TikTok was one of the issues they discussed.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry issued a statement Monday saying it was willing to cooperate with Trump in figuring out a way for TikTok to continue its U.S. operations. Trump has suggested a 90-day reprieve on any sale or closure of TikTok while he tries to figure out a way to preserve the service.

"TikTok has operated in the U.S. for many years and is deeply loved by American users," ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said. "We hope that the U.S. can earnestly listen to the voice of reason and provide an open, fair, just and non-discriminatory business environment for firms operating there."

Chinese officials said they also were dropping their pledge to block a forced sale of TikTok to Americans.

The possibility of acquiring or merging with TikTok has drawn intense interest from big name U.S. companies and chief executives. Financial analysts estimate the U.S. market could be worth $50 billion.

Unconfirmed media reports indicate interested buyers include former Los Angeles Dodgers owner Frank McCourt and Trump ally Elon Musk. On Saturday, U.S. search engine startup Perplexity AI submitted a proposal to ByteDance for Perplexity to merge with TikTok U.S.

For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: [email protected] or phone: 202-479-7240.

Facebook Faces Legal Challenges as it Ends Fact-Checking Program

Social media giant Meta appears to be headed into a legal quagmire after its chief executive officer announced this month his company would cease fact-checking and censorship of controversial material in user posts on Facebook and Instagram.

Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg said the censorship interferes with free speech.

At the same time, some states -- such as Maryland -- have laws prohibiting social media platforms from allowing posts or marketing practices that could be addictive toward children and lead them into depression.

Facebook and Instagram have been blamed for contributing to teen suicides. Meta is their parent company.

Zuckerberg acknowledged that hateful commentary might enter more frequently into Facebook and Instagram posts but added that it is not his company’s fault.

The censored material has included statements that gay people are mentally ill. Such statements no longer would be censored.

The fact-checking will be replaced by community notes, similar to social media site X. Community notes are a crowdsourcing system to flag potentially misleading content.

Zuckerberg could claim support for his policy shift from the U.S. Supreme Court's July decision in Moody v. NetChoice.

The Supreme Court said personalized feeds created by other persons and posted on social media websites qualify as “expression” protected by the First Amendment.

NetChoice is a trade association of online businesses that advocate for free expression and free enterprise on the internet. It has six ongoing First Amendment lawsuits over state-level internet regulations.

Zuckerberg instituted a fact-checker program in 2016 while Facebook was blamed for allowing posts of fake news and conspiracy theories that could influence who gets elected. The fact-checkers were supposed to remove false and misleading information.

He explained his reasoning in a 2016 Facebook post that said, “The bottom line is: we take misinformation seriously.”

In his change of plans for ending the program announced this month, Zuckerberg said the fact-checking was “too politically biased,” that there were “too many mistakes” and “too much censorship.”

Some of the complaints had come from Republican members of Congress. They said Facebook was censoring conservative commentary more than liberal opinions.

Regardless of the July Supreme Court ruling in favor of social media free expression, several states are continuing with their lawsuits against Facebook and other social media sites. They say the safety and well-being of the public is the issue, not free expression.

One of the most hotly contested state lawsuits is NetChoice v. Bonta, which challenges California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code Act as being ineffective and a violation of free speech.

A Maryland “Kids Code” law modeled on the one in California will not take effect until October but the state’s attorney general is acknowledging it could face a constitutional challenge.

Attorney General Anthony Brown wrote in a letter to the Maryland governor that the law was “not clearly unconstitutional” but has “potential constitutional issues.”

For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: [email protected] or phone: 202-479-7240.

D.C. Sports Betting Contractors Settle for $6.5 Million After Fraud Complaint

Two contractors for the District of Columbia’s sports betting and lottery programs agreed last week to pay $6.5 million to settle an attorney general’s claim that they engaged in fraud.

The D.C. attorney general’s complaint said that Greek gaming company Intralot and local subcontractor Veterans Service Corp. "conspired to secure approval" of the $215 million contract to manage the lottery and to build a sports betting app.

The contract required them to pay local subcontractors at least 51 percent of the contract value to do part of the work. The money to the subcontractors was supposed to be funneled through Veterans Service Corp.

Based on their assurance they would share the revenue with local companies, the D.C. Council approved the contract without a competitive bid in 2019.

Instead, Veterans Service Corp. returned the payments to Intralot, which then turned it over to one of its subsidiaries, according to D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb.

“This is a warning to any company that tries to manipulate and exploit District contracting laws, especially laws intended to build the capacity of the local businesses vital to our economy,” D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb said in a statement. “Intralot and VSC’s sports betting deal was a sham from the start—an elaborate scheme to secure a lucrative, high-profile opportunity on a sole-source basis while circumventing the District’s small business contracting laws.”

Intralot and Veterans Service Corp. acknowledge that less than 51 percent of its subcontractors are local to Washington. They denied they engaged in fraud.

They said that as they started on the project in 2019, it soon became obvious they could not find all the subcontractors they needed from among local businesses. As a result, they were forced to turn to the Intralot subsidiary for the specialized services they needed.

They did not admit wrongdoing in the settlement.

Veterans Service Corp."categorically denies that it has done anything wrong," the firm said in a statement. It settled to "avoid the exorbitant legal fees associated with defending a frivolous case where we strongly believe we would prevail on the merits."

Intralot agreed to pay the D.C. government $5 million under the settlement. Veterans Service Corp. will pay $1.5 million.

For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: [email protected] or phone: 202-479-7240.

Supreme Court Considers Revisions to Porn Rulings on Child Protection

The Supreme Court appeared cautiously ready last week to revise its rulings on how to prevent children from gaining access to online pornography.

A Texas law was the issue but Virginia has a similar law that will be affected by the court’s upcoming ruling.

The Supreme Court was told by attorneys advocating for a Texas anti-pornography law that new technology can prevent underage internet users from viewing pornography.

The law, H.B. 1181, passed by the Texas Legislature in 2023, requires websites with at least one-third of their content consisting of explicit sexual material to verify the ages of their visitors. Violators could be fined between $10,000 and $250,000, depending on whether minors could be harmed.

Internet platforms argued that age-verification systems are impractical and easily circumvented. They also said the systems could subject internet users to privacy violations, possibly allowing hackers to steal information that allows them to break into other people’s financial accounts.

"You're creating a permanent record on the internet when you provide this information," said Derek L. Shaffer, an attorney from the Washington-based firm Quinn Emanuel while representing the Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment industry trade group.

The Supreme Court previously has confronted issues of juveniles’ access to internet pornography but was less receptive to state restrictions than during the hearing Wednesday.

In 1996, the court struck down a law that banned explicit online material that could potentially be viewed by children. The court described the law as an overly broad intrusion into First Amendment free speech.

In 2004, the court ruled against a different federal law by saying content filtering for children could be acceptable but not if it filters all explicit material.

Texas attorneys said new technology makes content filtering specifically for children more practical.

Artificial intelligence is available now that takes pictures of internet site users and then quickly determines their ages based on their facial features.

Other verification systems use either a digital ID, commercial verification systems, or transactional data to verify a user's age.?

The New Orleans-based Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the new Texas law, prompting the Free Speech Coalition to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Texas solicitor general Aaron L. Nielson said the freedom of online platforms to choose how they verify a user’s age, along with the public good of blocking children from pornography, contributes to giving the law a “rational basis” that the Supreme Court should endorse.

The Supreme Court justices agreed online pornography was a growing problem but expressed reservations about new technologies for blocking it without trampling privacy or free speech rights.

The Free Speech Coalition agreed children should not see pornography but argued state laws like in Texas are so broad that they could block sexual education content and simulated sex scenes in movies.

They also said the state laws have loopholes by focusing on porn sites but not search engines that still could give access to explicit sexual content.?

Justice Samuel A. Alito responded to the Texas assurances about the effectiveness of online age-verification by saying, "Come on, be real. There's a huge volume of evidence that filtering doesn't work. We've had many years of experience with it.”

The case is Free Speech Coalition et al. v. Ken Paxton before the U.S. Supreme Court.

For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: [email protected] or phone: 202-479-7240.