Nassif challenged the constitutionality of a law that bans “parading, picketing, and demonstrating” inside the Capitol, arguing it violates the First Amendment’s protections of free speech and assembly. The charge is one of the most commonly applied against Jan. 6 defendants. President-elect Donald Trump is weighing pardons for many involved in the Capitol riot.

The defendant, 57, was sentenced to seven months in prison after being convicted of multiple misdemeanors, including disorderly conduct and violent entry. Prosecutors initially sought a sentence of 10 to 16 months. Nassif’s public defenders contended that he entered the Capitol nearly an hour after it was breached and stayed for less than 10 minutes, engaging in what they described as “core First Amendment expression that is in no way disruptive.”

How lower courts have ruled on ‘parading’ inside the Capitol

Lower courts, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, rejected Nassif’s arguments. A three-judge panel ruled that the Capitol buildings are not a public forum open for protests, allowing the government to impose reasonable and viewpoint-neutral restrictions to maintain order and security.

“Nassif has not established that the Capitol buildings are, by policy or practice, generally open for use by members of the public to voice whatever concerns they may have — much less to use for protests, pickets, or demonstrations,” the panel stated.

Nassif’s petition highlighted a conflict between the D.C. Circuit and the D.C. Court of Appeals regarding the Capitol’s status as a public forum. While the D.C. Circuit has classified the Capitol buildings as nonpublic forums, permitting broader restrictions, the D.C. Court of Appeals has acknowledged that certain areas, such as the Capitol Rotunda, are public forums where speech restrictions must be narrowly tailored.

U.S. District Judge John Bates previously upheld the parading charge against Nassif, citing established precedents that allow for reasonable restrictions on First Amendment activities within the Capitol. The government’s position is that such restrictions are necessary to prevent disruptions to congressional proceedings and ensure the safety and security of the legislative process.

More to come as Trump promises Jan. 6 pardons

The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case leaves the lower court’s ruling intact, maintaining the government’s ability to prosecute individuals under the parading statute. This decision has significant implications for more than 460 defendants charged with the same misdemeanor in connection with the Jan. 6 riot — the most common charge among the over 1,450 people prosecuted to date, according to the Department of Justice.

The last case the justices decided involving the riot was in United States v. Fischer. In that case, the court narrowed the scope of an obstruction statute, Section 1512(c)(2), which was used against more than 120 defendants, elevating the burden of proof required for prosecution. On Nov. 1, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell ruled in a similar case, United States v. DeCarlo, that set a heightened barrier to imposing the obstruction charge, signaling the DOJ might not get that charge to stick in any remaining Jan. 6 cases.

Not much is clear yet as to the extent Trump plans to pardon Jan. 6 defendants or how many will be included on the list. He previously said, “I am inclined to pardon many of them. I can’t say for every single one because a couple of them, probably they got out of control.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Out of the total number of defendants, nearly 600 have been charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding law enforcement officers, and arrests are still being made.