Fourth Federal Judge Denies Refund Request from Pardoned Jan. 6 Defendant

A fourth federal judge has now rejected a request for reimbursement of restitution from a defendant involved in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, despite the defendant having received a presidential pardon from Donald Trump.

The latest decision came from U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who denied a motion filed by Stacy Hager, a Texas man convicted on four misdemeanor counts for his participation in the Capitol riot. In 2023, Hager was sentenced and ordered to pay $570 in restitution, a sum he hoped to recover after being granted a full pardon by President Trump earlier this year.

According to court records and reporting from Law & Crime, Hager had boasted about his involvement in the Capitol breach, even posting photos and videos on Facebook showing himself inside the Capitol building during the riot. Prosecutors said he made no attempt to hide his actions and was part of the crowd that unlawfully entered the building on that day.

Though federal prosecutors supported Hager’s motion, suggesting there was no longer any legal justification for the government to retain the money, Judge Chutkan disagreed, citing longstanding legal precedent and similar rulings from fellow judges in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

In her decision, issued last Thursday, Chutkan referenced rulings from three other federal judges in the same district—Chief Judge James Boasberg and Judges Royce Lamberth and Randolph Moss—who all recently denied similar refund requests from pardoned January 6 defendants.

Chutkan emphasized that the legal standard for post-pardon reimbursement is well-established. She pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1877 decision in Knote v. United States, which held that a presidential pardon is an “act of grace” and does not entitle the recipient to reclaim fines, fees, or property that have already been lawfully transferred to others.

“A pardon does not restore rights or property that have already vested in another party as a result of a legal conviction,” Chutkan wrote. “In this case, the $570 paid by Mr. Hager became part of the United States Treasury, and Congress has not granted this court authority to order its return.”

Despite the pardon, Chutkan maintained that the funds, once paid and allocated under a lawful judgment, are no longer within the court’s purview to refund. She also noted that the U.S. government’s position—supporting the refund in this instance—was unusual and inconsistent with the principles laid out in Knote.

“The government acknowledges that pardons generally do not undo the financial consequences of a conviction,” she wrote. “Yet here, they suggest this situation is unique enough to merit an exception. This court disagrees.”

Federal prosecutors had argued that Hager’s case differed from others because his conviction had been vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals while it was still under review, suggesting the legal basis for the financial penalty no longer existed. Assistant U.S. Attorney Adam Dreher wrote in his brief that because Hager’s conviction was invalidated, “there is no longer any basis justifying the government’s retaining funds exacted only as a result of that conviction.”

However, Chutkan, following the lead of her colleagues on the bench, rejected this line of reasoning. She stated that even in cases where a conviction is vacated or a pardon is issued, restitution payments that have already been transferred into the Treasury are considered final unless Congress specifically authorizes their return.

Chief Judge Boasberg recently denied a similar motion from a Maryland couple who had sought to recover approximately $1,000 in restitution. Judge Moss rejected a request from a former U.S. Marine from New Jersey, while Judge Lamberth denied restitution to John Sullivan, a Utah man involved in the Capitol breach.

President Trump’s controversial decision to issue mass pardons to individuals convicted of crimes related to the January 6 riot—including Hager—has reignited political tensions. More than 1,500 defendants have been granted clemency since Trump began his second term in January 2025. Critics, mostly Democrats, argue that the move undermines the rule of law, while many Republicans have framed the pardons as a correction of what they view as excessive punishment by the Biden-era Justice Department.

In her final remarks, Chutkan reaffirmed that the court lacks the legal authority to overturn what is now a settled financial matter. “Unless Congress acts to authorize refunds in these circumstances,” she wrote, “the judiciary cannot compel the return of funds that have already been paid and lawfully allocated.”

Hager’s attempt to reclaim the restitution joins a growing list of similar efforts by pardoned January 6 defendants, all of which have so far been denied by federal judges.