Obama-Appointed Judge Rejects Request for Restitution Refund From Pardoned Jan. 6 Defendant

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has rejected a request from a pardoned January 6 defendant seeking a refund of restitution and fines paid before receiving clemency from former President Donald Trump. The ruling marks the fourth such denial by a federal judge this year, reinforcing a growing judicial consensus that presidential pardons do not entitle recipients to reclaim money already paid to the government.

The latest decision came from U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, who issued a three-page order dismissing the motion filed by Stacy Hager, a 61-year-old Texas resident convicted on four misdemeanor charges connected to the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot.

Hager’s Restitution Request

Hager, who was sentenced in 2023, had been ordered to pay $570 in restitution as part of his sentence for unlawfully entering restricted grounds and demonstrating inside the U.S. Capitol. Following Trump’s mass pardon earlier this year, Hager filed a motion in February asking for the government to return the funds, arguing that his conviction had been “invalidated” after being vacated on appeal.

The Justice Department did not oppose Hager’s request and even agreed that the refund was appropriate, asserting there was “no longer any legal basis” for retaining the funds once his conviction was nullified. However, Judge Chutkan disagreed, citing precedent that limits the effects of a presidential pardon.

Judge Cites Legal Precedent

In her ruling, Chutkan referenced three similar cases decided by fellow judges in the D.C. District Court — Chief Judge James Boasberg, Judge Royce Lamberth, and Judge Randolph Moss — all of whom denied restitution refund requests from pardoned defendants involved in the Capitol breach.

Chutkan leaned heavily on the 1877 Supreme Court case Knote v. United States, which held that a presidential pardon “does not restore property or rights already vested in others as a result of a conviction.” She wrote that while a pardon removes the punishment and restores civil rights, it does not entitle a defendant to reclaim money that has already been lawfully paid.

“A pardon cannot authorize reimbursement once funds have been disbursed to another party, because the recipient’s rights to those funds are as complete as if acquired in any other lawful manner,” Chutkan wrote.

Growing Pattern of Judicial Rejection

The ruling extends a recent trend among federal judges who have consistently rejected similar refund motions filed by Trump-pardoned January 6 defendants.

Earlier this year, Judge Boasberg denied a Maryland couple’s bid to recover about $1,000 in restitution, while Judge Moss ruled against a New Jersey Marine veteran seeking reimbursement. Judge Lamberth also refused a similar request from John Sullivan, a Utah defendant involved in the Capitol breach.

Each of the judges has pointed to the same foundational legal principle: a presidential pardon is an act of clemency that forgives a crime, but it does not undo its financial or legal consequences retroactively.

Trump’s Broad Clemency Order

Trump’s sweeping clemency for January 6 participants was one of the most controversial acts of his second term. The order covered more than 1,500 individuals, ranging from misdemeanor trespassers to defendants convicted of assaulting police officers.

Supporters of the pardons have described them as a correction of what they view as politically motivated prosecutions. Critics, including many Democrats and some moderate Republicans, have condemned them as a dangerous signal of leniency toward political violence.

Hager’s case was one of several where the Justice Department took the unusual step of not contesting the defendant’s request for restitution refunds. Federal prosecutors acknowledged that Hager’s conviction was technically vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court, creating what they described as a “unique procedural posture.”

Assistant U.S. Attorney Adam Dreher wrote that since Hager’s conviction was overturned, “there is no longer any basis justifying the government’s retention of funds collected solely as a result of that conviction.”

Despite the government’s agreement, Judge Chutkan maintained that the law does not permit reimbursement without congressional authorization.

“In Knote, the Supreme Court made clear that a pardoned individual is not entitled to reclaim payments already deposited into the United States Treasury unless Congress specifically authorizes it,” she concluded. “Therefore, this court lacks the authority to compel the Architect of the Capitol to refund Hager’s $570.”

Partisan Divide Over January 6 Pardons

The dispute highlights ongoing political and legal divisions over the legacy of January 6 prosecutions. Many Republicans argue that the Justice Department’s handling of the cases was overly harsh, pointing out that some defendants were detained for months without trial. Democrats, meanwhile, maintain that the pardons undermine accountability for an event that shook the foundations of American democracy.

Trump’s decision to pardon nearly all January 6 defendants drew praise from his political base but sparked outrage from civil rights groups and former law enforcement officials.

“Justice should be impartial, not weaponized,” Trump said in a recent statement defending the pardons. “These were Americans who protested an election they believed was unfair — they should never have been treated like terrorists.”

A Legal Precedent Likely to Stand

Judge Chutkan’s decision aligns with the broader judicial view that the financial consequences of a conviction — once finalized and paid — cannot be undone by a pardon alone.

Legal analysts expect this position to remain consistent across future cases, effectively closing the door on similar refund requests from pardoned January 6 defendants.

As Chutkan’s order made clear, the presidential power to pardon remains vast but not unlimited: “A pardon may forgive a crime, but it cannot rewrite history or restore what the law has already vested elsewhere.”