Nice article, but it's a little depressing that we even have to have articles explaining the basic logic of due process. You would think people would have internalized the concept that 'punishing innocent people without a fair trial is bad' but here we are. Unfortunately, the people who need to hear that are unlikely to read this article or consider its thesis.
I agree with what you said, but I think you left off another, vital, concern: that these accused Venezuelan gang members were not deported. Deportation means sending them back to their country of origin. Venezuela didn't refuse to accept them. They are being sent to one of the most notorious prison/torture centers in the world, and there is no mechanism for them to ever be released. Did the people really vote to do that to illegal migrants, whether innocent or guilty alike?
My husband is a public defender, so I especially appreciated this piece. And you put the crucial point so succinctly and clearly: “The purpose of due process is to make sure the government doesn’t punish innocent people. The way it works is that when the government makes an accusation against someone, that person is then allowed a court process where they can defend themselves. The purpose of this process is to make sure that the government can prove its case against someone before punishing them.”
Zaid, why does it matter now? After all we have witnessed and undergone with 4 years of Biden’s Regime and 8 of Obam’s?
At what point were J6 protestors given due process? Most held without so much as a trial for years on end? Or President Trump - EVEN NOW. We have nobody giving Tesla due process. Nor Elon. Just politicians calling for violence and having their mindless drones commit horrific acts against Americans. Not so much as a condemnation from the left.
This feels like liberal civics 101 platitudes that you dug up in the form of ancient tablets from the cave in the mountains. But there’s nobody listening down below save for the zealots who are clinging for anything and everything to hate on Trump and his party.
So at least say, due process matters*…
*When I think it does.
My father was granted a visa and later a green card to come to America in the 70s to work as a physician (with a speciality). I didn’t see him for the first 3 years of my life because my mother (also a physician) was put on the wait list for that time.
He came here to escape the Islamist hellscape that was coming for what was once our home. My mother and I waited in that hellscape before being allowed to literally flee what was once our country. Under the fog of war.
So yea, I do think Venezuelan gang members should be deported out under extraordinary wartime measures (like they were let in). And I don’t particularly have any sympathy if a few illegal alien non gang members are ported out too. And same for islamist jihadis who I KNOW FOR A FACT do not want to assimilate, but instead want to conquer this nation and all of the west. I get to have those arguments with a quarter of my family who are still Islamic fundamentalists supporting those garbage humans like Khalil. Then I weep for my fellow Americans who are so brainwashed as to believe the tripe being fed them daily by mainstream media and their pundits.
So you typed and copy/pasted a lot of stuff. But this is cherry picking from over 1,000 cases. If you’re only claiming that certain individuals had credible due process complaints, that’s fair.
If you’re claiming though that the J6 defendants were systematically denied due process, nope. Your flood of information doesn’t support that. Also, your characterizing the guilty pleas as “under duress” is the weakest part of your argument, as is the venue argument.
You flooded the zone with a ton of stuff, but in the process threw it all together into a disorganized mess whereby context on due process for the totality of the cases is sorely missing.
Whether or not the left condemns something means that the government can forgo other people’s rights? That doesn’t track.
I am confident that the author would also want other people charged with crimes to get swift due process. Are you saying it’s fine to remove unrelated other people’s rights as, what, retaliation?
Let us count the ways in which the legal system served as an INjustice system against the J6 defendents.
Excessive Pretrial Detention and Harsh Conditions:
Many J6 defendants were held in pretrial detention for extended periods, sometimes months or even years, before their trials. This violates the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a "speedy trial." Reports of poor prison conditions—such as solitary confinement, limited access to legal counsel, and allegations of physical abuse in facilities like the D.C. jail—further fuel claims that these detentions were punitive rather than procedural, undermining the presumption of innocence.
Bias in Venue and Judiciary:
Trials were held in Washington, D.C., where the population and jury pool overwhelmingly lean politically opposed to the defendants’ perceived affiliations (e.g., support for Donald Trump). This created an inherently biased environment, making impartial juries nearly impossible. Requests for changes of venue were consistently denied, which compromised the Fifth Amendment right to a fair trial by an impartial tribunal.
Withholding of Exculpatory Evidence:
Prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence, such as video footage showing police allowing protesters into the Capitol or failing to intervene, which could suggest a lack of criminal intent. This violates Brady v. Maryland (1963), which mandates the disclosure of evidence favorable to the defense, undermining due process.
Overcharging and Disproportionate Sentencing:
Many defendants faced charges like "obstruction of an official proceeding" or "entering a restricted area," which were applied overly broadly or punitively to inflate penalties. Sentences, such as multi-year prison terms for non-violent acts (e.g., trespassing), are excessive compared to similar offenses in other contexts, raising questions about equal protection and fairness under the law.
Limited Access to Effective Counsel:
Some defendants relied on public defenders who were allegedly overburdened or ideologically unsympathetic, given D.C.’s political leanings. Reports of restricted attorney-client communication—due to jail conditions or surveillance concerns—further hampered their ability to mount a robust defense, potentially violating the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
Pressure to Plead Guilty:
With over 1,000 defendants pleading guilty, critics argue that many did so under duress—facing the prospect of harsher sentences if they went to trial in a hostile jurisdiction, coupled with prolonged pretrial detention. This raises concerns about coerced pleas, which undermines the voluntary nature of plea agreements and thus due process.
Selective Prosecution:
Comparisons are often drawn to other protests (e.g., those involving progressive causes) where participants faced lesser charges or no prosecution despite similar or more violent actions. This double standard suggests a politically motivated application of justice, challenging the principle of equal treatment under the law.
Denial of Public Authority Defense:
Some defendants argued they believed they had permission to enter the Capitol, either due to Trump’s rhetoric or police inaction (e.g., officers appearing to wave people in). Courts largely rejected this "public authority" or "entrapment-by-estoppel" defense, even when evidence might have supported good-faith belief, raising questions about whether their intent was fairly assessed.
Novel Legal Theories and Their Unprecedented Application
Broad Use of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2)):
Prosecutors applied a provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act—enacted in 2002 to address corporate fraud after the Enron scandal—to charge over 350 J6 defendants with "obstruction of an official proceeding." This statute, specifically § 1512(c)(2), prohibits corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding, with a maximum penalty of 20 years. Historically, it targeted document destruction or evidence tampering in financial crimes, not physical disruptions of government functions. Prior to J6, this law had never been used to prosecute individuals for disrupting a congressional session through protest or physical presence. The Justice Department’s novel interpretation extended it to cover the chaotic events of January 6, 2021, arguing that the defendants’ actions impeded Congress’s certification of the 2020 election. This marked a significant departure from its original intent, raising questions about whether it was stretched beyond reasonable legal bounds to fit a politically charged event.
Lack of Precedent for Mass Application:
The sheer scale of applying this felony charge—originally designed for white-collar crime—to hundreds of protesters was unprecedented. By March 25, 2025, over 1,500 individuals had been charged in connection with J6, with roughly 25% facing this obstruction count alongside other charges. Legal scholars and defense attorneys argued this represented a "dragnet" approach, weaponizing a statute in a way never tested or normalized in prior case law. This mass application suggested a prosecutorial overreach aimed at maximizing punishment rather than adhering to established legal norms, potentially violating the principle that laws should be applied consistently and predictably.
Ambiguity in "Corrupt Intent":
The statute requires proof of "corrupt" intent, a high bar traditionally linked to deliberate acts like shredding documents to hide crimes. Prosecutors argued that entering the Capitol or chanting slogans showed intent to obstruct Congress, a theory that lacked clear precedent in physical protest cases. This vague standard left defendants vulnerable to subjective interpretation by judges and juries in a politically hostile D.C. venue, further compounding due process concerns.
Supreme Court’s Rejection in Fischer v. United States (June 28, 2024)
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling in Fischer v. United States directly addressed this novel legal theory, throwing out the obstruction charge as applied to J6 defendants and exposing its shaky foundation. Key points from the decision highlight its unprecedented nature and the Court’s corrective action:
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, ruled that § 1512(c)(2) applies only when a defendant "impaired the availability or integrity" of documents, records, or objects used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so. This interpretation tied the law back to its Enron-era roots, rejecting the government’s broader claim that any disruption of a proceeding qualified. The decision invalidated the charge for defendants whose actions (e.g., entering the Capitol) didn’t involve document tampering, effectively dismantling the legal theory for hundreds of cases. By March 2025, this ruling had led to over 60 obstruction charges being dropped, with more expected to follow as courts reassessed cases.
Rebuke of Prosecutorial Overreach:
Roberts criticized the Justice Department’s "novel interpretation" as one that "would criminalize a broad swath of prosaic conduct," potentially targeting lawful protests or lobbying. This underscored the unprecedented leap from corporate fraud to political protest, suggesting prosecutors had ventured into uncharted—and unjustifiable—legal territory. The Court’s intervention validated claims that J6 defendants were subjected to an experimental legal strategy that inflated their culpability. For example, many faced felony charges carrying 20-year sentences for actions (e.g., trespassing or parading) that might otherwise have been misdemeanors. The ruling forced a reckoning with whether this approach denied defendants fair notice of what constituted a crime under the law—a cornerstone of due process. The unprecedented use of novel legal theories, later struck down by the Supreme Court, bolsters the argument that J6 protesters did not receive swift, free, and fair trials
The reliance on an untested theory prolonged legal proceedings, as defendants awaited the Supreme Court’s clarification. Some languished in pretrial detention or served sentences before the ruling exposed the charges’ flaws. The lack of prior precedent meant defendants were judged by a standard invented post hoc, undermining equal protection and legal predictability. This legal experimentation reflected a politicized rush to punish J6 participants, contrasting with lighter treatment of other protest movements, further eroding perceptions of fairness.
The J6ERS didn't receive fair due process in indictment, detention, pleas, charges, prosecutors, defenders, judges, jurors, sentencing, or appeal. They literally didn't get a fair hearing until it finally hit the Supreme Court YEARS LATER after some had DIED. So no, they didn't get their due process. I don't personally agree with their pardon including assaults on officers, but absolutely NOTHING about how they were treated by the legal system in DC meets the standards to which citizens are entitled under the Law
Rambling article that falsely equates media harassment with lack of due process then, without legal justification, demands an unquantified level of due process for those who come under the jurisdiction of the executive branch’s immigration and border control enforcement duties. No, illegal immigrants are not entitled to “their day in court” including those who entered “legally” under false pretenses like Mahmoud Khalil, the poster boy for the Muslim Brotherhood’s many-tentacled agenda in support for Hamas in particular and Islamist terror in particular. They are trespassers and the Executive Branch is obligated to remove them. Tough tits if that ejection is impolite.
I disagree about due process in respect to those who came illegally into this country. The Biden administration was very neglectful allowing millions to come across the border that made it much easier for drugs and gangs to come in. The accountability they faced was not being reelected. The damage was much greater, even to those who now are facing going back after leaving their homes for a better opportunity. I believe in due process for those who committed ADDITIONAL crimes, but all those who came across illegally should be deported. There has to be some accountability for doing something illegal. At the very least, the origin countries will have to deal with criminals once again. It is so complicated! But consideration should be given to citizens of this country who have paid a price for all the illegals putting such a strain on cities and people. There is plenty of blame to go around. What started this problem in the first place? I appreciate all the comments.
Due process can help ensure that citizens are not deported. If a person is detained and cannot immediately produce their papers, what is the procedure to ensure they really are here illegally? In my mind, this is one of the major areas that due process needs to be applied.
Not everyone has a passport or a birth certificate easily accessible. I didn't have a passport for decades although I do now carry one. Same thing with my birth certificate which my mother lost long ago. It wasn't until recently when I decided that I wanted my passport that I had to go back and get my birth certificate. I do have a NY state driver's license, but not the kind you have to prove citizenship to obtain. So, a year ago I would have had no immediately available proof of my citizenship. Other than due process, what would have stopped the government from deporting me?
Due process doesn't mean no accountability. It just means that one has to go through the system and the government has to prove some violation or some crime. Then the law applies. So for all the violent, illegal immigrants, let them go through due process and once it is determined that they truly are violent and illegal then, and only then, deport them.
I appreciate your comments - I still come back to the question - why were so many allowed to come? If they are here illegally that is the crime that is being addressed. I agree that I do not want anyone sent to a prison under false circumstances. 20 million people? The courts cannot handle what is there now. I agree there needs to be a process- I am accepting at some point ICE and Homan are deporting those who have been arrested for a crime, released, committed more crimes, or deported and came back. If there is a better plan, I am all for it. Thanks for your comments.
Did Barack Obama, AKA the "deporter in chief" apply due process when he expelled and estimated 3 million illegal migrants during his term?
For Tren de Aragua types, due process means answering a couple of questions (1) Are you here legally? If no, then you are subject to immediate deportation already. (2) Do you have or are you likely to have association/habits/ambitions that make you a liability to this nation? If yes, then what the hell are we waiting for?
Your compassion for dangerous people who absolutely intend to do great harm to our society is misplaced. Those people, who were foolishly admitted in great numbers by the late Administration, have no business being here and should be removed, by any means necessary, posthaste. Yes it is possible that a few non-dangerous individuals will be swept up by mistake, and that's unfortunate, but the error rate is never going to be zero. Maybe you should have thought about it before covering every bit of skin with gang-affiliated tatts.
Inviting the world's most desperate, hence dangerous, people to come on down is a Very Bad Idea, yet another expression of the suicidal empathy that is rapidly destroying the West.
My first reaction is; is this written for children? Then I realize, no its for adults with a child like mentality. Maybe, Democrats and Republicans would understand due process better if given the examples of Obama being accused of not being American or Trump being a Russian trader? What would you due if you were accused of being a witch or a communist?
I don't agree with everything you say, but you are dead right about this. Whatever happened to the saying that it is better to let 10 guilty people go free than to let 1 suffer? I get that the people being deported are not citizens. But they are here on American soil and they are entitled (yes, entitled) to due process before being caged. Don't have enough infrastructure to provide them with due process? Then build it out. My understanding is that the illegal border crossings have largely ceased. One would think that would leave an awful lot of resources some of which could be re-directed to such a build out of the systems needed to provide due process.
Zaid, consistent with the laws currently in effect, what due process have they been denied? Seriously, I've read the articles from both sides regarding the various laws involved and it certainly looks to me like the Trump administration has colored within the lines here and it's partisan district judges and their nationwide injunctions that are violating Supreme Court rulings and guidance on this matter. Aliens fall under different legal standards than citizens when it comes to immigration, national security, and foreign policy.
Are you arguing that the LAW should be different than it is? That the administration's ENFORCEMENT of the law needs to be different? Or just selectively opposing the enforcement of our existing laws by the President elected to do so, "because Trump"?
There's a phenomenon I'm getting very tired of where people complain about President Trump NOT because he is BREAKING any laws, but because he is actually ENFORCING the laws that so many previous Presidents simply didn't. If you have an issue with the laws themselves, your complaints really ought to be directed at the Congress that passed them, not the Chief Executive enforcing them.
This is kind of meaningless until we have confirmation that deportees have been deprived of hearings. At this point what the opposition has is Homan, who was angry and emotional. Is he actually claiming that people are being deported without due process? I doubt it.
Nice article, but it's a little depressing that we even have to have articles explaining the basic logic of due process. You would think people would have internalized the concept that 'punishing innocent people without a fair trial is bad' but here we are. Unfortunately, the people who need to hear that are unlikely to read this article or consider its thesis.
I agree with what you said, but I think you left off another, vital, concern: that these accused Venezuelan gang members were not deported. Deportation means sending them back to their country of origin. Venezuela didn't refuse to accept them. They are being sent to one of the most notorious prison/torture centers in the world, and there is no mechanism for them to ever be released. Did the people really vote to do that to illegal migrants, whether innocent or guilty alike?
My husband is a public defender, so I especially appreciated this piece. And you put the crucial point so succinctly and clearly: “The purpose of due process is to make sure the government doesn’t punish innocent people. The way it works is that when the government makes an accusation against someone, that person is then allowed a court process where they can defend themselves. The purpose of this process is to make sure that the government can prove its case against someone before punishing them.”
Without due process, what stops this (or any) administration from grabbing *anyone* (even U.S. citizens) and tossing them in an El Salvador prison?
This is just “extraordinary rendition” all over again.
Zaid, why does it matter now? After all we have witnessed and undergone with 4 years of Biden’s Regime and 8 of Obam’s?
At what point were J6 protestors given due process? Most held without so much as a trial for years on end? Or President Trump - EVEN NOW. We have nobody giving Tesla due process. Nor Elon. Just politicians calling for violence and having their mindless drones commit horrific acts against Americans. Not so much as a condemnation from the left.
This feels like liberal civics 101 platitudes that you dug up in the form of ancient tablets from the cave in the mountains. But there’s nobody listening down below save for the zealots who are clinging for anything and everything to hate on Trump and his party.
So at least say, due process matters*…
*When I think it does.
My father was granted a visa and later a green card to come to America in the 70s to work as a physician (with a speciality). I didn’t see him for the first 3 years of my life because my mother (also a physician) was put on the wait list for that time.
He came here to escape the Islamist hellscape that was coming for what was once our home. My mother and I waited in that hellscape before being allowed to literally flee what was once our country. Under the fog of war.
So yea, I do think Venezuelan gang members should be deported out under extraordinary wartime measures (like they were let in). And I don’t particularly have any sympathy if a few illegal alien non gang members are ported out too. And same for islamist jihadis who I KNOW FOR A FACT do not want to assimilate, but instead want to conquer this nation and all of the west. I get to have those arguments with a quarter of my family who are still Islamic fundamentalists supporting those garbage humans like Khalil. Then I weep for my fellow Americans who are so brainwashed as to believe the tripe being fed them daily by mainstream media and their pundits.
So you typed and copy/pasted a lot of stuff. But this is cherry picking from over 1,000 cases. If you’re only claiming that certain individuals had credible due process complaints, that’s fair.
If you’re claiming though that the J6 defendants were systematically denied due process, nope. Your flood of information doesn’t support that. Also, your characterizing the guilty pleas as “under duress” is the weakest part of your argument, as is the venue argument.
You flooded the zone with a ton of stuff, but in the process threw it all together into a disorganized mess whereby context on due process for the totality of the cases is sorely missing.
Whether or not the left condemns something means that the government can forgo other people’s rights? That doesn’t track.
I am confident that the author would also want other people charged with crimes to get swift due process. Are you saying it’s fine to remove unrelated other people’s rights as, what, retaliation?
“At what point were J6 protestors given due process?”
Did you type this with a straight face?
The answer was when they went through the US courts system.
No neutral observer of how the court system treated them is likely to agree that their treatment met due process standards.
And yet they were indicted and convicted. Though you allude to neutral observers, you’re clearly not one of them
Let us count the ways in which the legal system served as an INjustice system against the J6 defendents.
Excessive Pretrial Detention and Harsh Conditions:
Many J6 defendants were held in pretrial detention for extended periods, sometimes months or even years, before their trials. This violates the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a "speedy trial." Reports of poor prison conditions—such as solitary confinement, limited access to legal counsel, and allegations of physical abuse in facilities like the D.C. jail—further fuel claims that these detentions were punitive rather than procedural, undermining the presumption of innocence.
Bias in Venue and Judiciary:
Trials were held in Washington, D.C., where the population and jury pool overwhelmingly lean politically opposed to the defendants’ perceived affiliations (e.g., support for Donald Trump). This created an inherently biased environment, making impartial juries nearly impossible. Requests for changes of venue were consistently denied, which compromised the Fifth Amendment right to a fair trial by an impartial tribunal.
Withholding of Exculpatory Evidence:
Prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence, such as video footage showing police allowing protesters into the Capitol or failing to intervene, which could suggest a lack of criminal intent. This violates Brady v. Maryland (1963), which mandates the disclosure of evidence favorable to the defense, undermining due process.
Overcharging and Disproportionate Sentencing:
Many defendants faced charges like "obstruction of an official proceeding" or "entering a restricted area," which were applied overly broadly or punitively to inflate penalties. Sentences, such as multi-year prison terms for non-violent acts (e.g., trespassing), are excessive compared to similar offenses in other contexts, raising questions about equal protection and fairness under the law.
Limited Access to Effective Counsel:
Some defendants relied on public defenders who were allegedly overburdened or ideologically unsympathetic, given D.C.’s political leanings. Reports of restricted attorney-client communication—due to jail conditions or surveillance concerns—further hampered their ability to mount a robust defense, potentially violating the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
Pressure to Plead Guilty:
With over 1,000 defendants pleading guilty, critics argue that many did so under duress—facing the prospect of harsher sentences if they went to trial in a hostile jurisdiction, coupled with prolonged pretrial detention. This raises concerns about coerced pleas, which undermines the voluntary nature of plea agreements and thus due process.
Selective Prosecution:
Comparisons are often drawn to other protests (e.g., those involving progressive causes) where participants faced lesser charges or no prosecution despite similar or more violent actions. This double standard suggests a politically motivated application of justice, challenging the principle of equal treatment under the law.
Denial of Public Authority Defense:
Some defendants argued they believed they had permission to enter the Capitol, either due to Trump’s rhetoric or police inaction (e.g., officers appearing to wave people in). Courts largely rejected this "public authority" or "entrapment-by-estoppel" defense, even when evidence might have supported good-faith belief, raising questions about whether their intent was fairly assessed.
Novel Legal Theories and Their Unprecedented Application
Broad Use of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2)):
Prosecutors applied a provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act—enacted in 2002 to address corporate fraud after the Enron scandal—to charge over 350 J6 defendants with "obstruction of an official proceeding." This statute, specifically § 1512(c)(2), prohibits corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding, with a maximum penalty of 20 years. Historically, it targeted document destruction or evidence tampering in financial crimes, not physical disruptions of government functions. Prior to J6, this law had never been used to prosecute individuals for disrupting a congressional session through protest or physical presence. The Justice Department’s novel interpretation extended it to cover the chaotic events of January 6, 2021, arguing that the defendants’ actions impeded Congress’s certification of the 2020 election. This marked a significant departure from its original intent, raising questions about whether it was stretched beyond reasonable legal bounds to fit a politically charged event.
Lack of Precedent for Mass Application:
The sheer scale of applying this felony charge—originally designed for white-collar crime—to hundreds of protesters was unprecedented. By March 25, 2025, over 1,500 individuals had been charged in connection with J6, with roughly 25% facing this obstruction count alongside other charges. Legal scholars and defense attorneys argued this represented a "dragnet" approach, weaponizing a statute in a way never tested or normalized in prior case law. This mass application suggested a prosecutorial overreach aimed at maximizing punishment rather than adhering to established legal norms, potentially violating the principle that laws should be applied consistently and predictably.
Ambiguity in "Corrupt Intent":
The statute requires proof of "corrupt" intent, a high bar traditionally linked to deliberate acts like shredding documents to hide crimes. Prosecutors argued that entering the Capitol or chanting slogans showed intent to obstruct Congress, a theory that lacked clear precedent in physical protest cases. This vague standard left defendants vulnerable to subjective interpretation by judges and juries in a politically hostile D.C. venue, further compounding due process concerns.
Supreme Court’s Rejection in Fischer v. United States (June 28, 2024)
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling in Fischer v. United States directly addressed this novel legal theory, throwing out the obstruction charge as applied to J6 defendants and exposing its shaky foundation. Key points from the decision highlight its unprecedented nature and the Court’s corrective action:
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, ruled that § 1512(c)(2) applies only when a defendant "impaired the availability or integrity" of documents, records, or objects used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so. This interpretation tied the law back to its Enron-era roots, rejecting the government’s broader claim that any disruption of a proceeding qualified. The decision invalidated the charge for defendants whose actions (e.g., entering the Capitol) didn’t involve document tampering, effectively dismantling the legal theory for hundreds of cases. By March 2025, this ruling had led to over 60 obstruction charges being dropped, with more expected to follow as courts reassessed cases.
Rebuke of Prosecutorial Overreach:
Roberts criticized the Justice Department’s "novel interpretation" as one that "would criminalize a broad swath of prosaic conduct," potentially targeting lawful protests or lobbying. This underscored the unprecedented leap from corporate fraud to political protest, suggesting prosecutors had ventured into uncharted—and unjustifiable—legal territory. The Court’s intervention validated claims that J6 defendants were subjected to an experimental legal strategy that inflated their culpability. For example, many faced felony charges carrying 20-year sentences for actions (e.g., trespassing or parading) that might otherwise have been misdemeanors. The ruling forced a reckoning with whether this approach denied defendants fair notice of what constituted a crime under the law—a cornerstone of due process. The unprecedented use of novel legal theories, later struck down by the Supreme Court, bolsters the argument that J6 protesters did not receive swift, free, and fair trials
The reliance on an untested theory prolonged legal proceedings, as defendants awaited the Supreme Court’s clarification. Some languished in pretrial detention or served sentences before the ruling exposed the charges’ flaws. The lack of prior precedent meant defendants were judged by a standard invented post hoc, undermining equal protection and legal predictability. This legal experimentation reflected a politicized rush to punish J6 participants, contrasting with lighter treatment of other protest movements, further eroding perceptions of fairness.
The J6ERS didn't receive fair due process in indictment, detention, pleas, charges, prosecutors, defenders, judges, jurors, sentencing, or appeal. They literally didn't get a fair hearing until it finally hit the Supreme Court YEARS LATER after some had DIED. So no, they didn't get their due process. I don't personally agree with their pardon including assaults on officers, but absolutely NOTHING about how they were treated by the legal system in DC meets the standards to which citizens are entitled under the Law
Rambling article that falsely equates media harassment with lack of due process then, without legal justification, demands an unquantified level of due process for those who come under the jurisdiction of the executive branch’s immigration and border control enforcement duties. No, illegal immigrants are not entitled to “their day in court” including those who entered “legally” under false pretenses like Mahmoud Khalil, the poster boy for the Muslim Brotherhood’s many-tentacled agenda in support for Hamas in particular and Islamist terror in particular. They are trespassers and the Executive Branch is obligated to remove them. Tough tits if that ejection is impolite.
I disagree about due process in respect to those who came illegally into this country. The Biden administration was very neglectful allowing millions to come across the border that made it much easier for drugs and gangs to come in. The accountability they faced was not being reelected. The damage was much greater, even to those who now are facing going back after leaving their homes for a better opportunity. I believe in due process for those who committed ADDITIONAL crimes, but all those who came across illegally should be deported. There has to be some accountability for doing something illegal. At the very least, the origin countries will have to deal with criminals once again. It is so complicated! But consideration should be given to citizens of this country who have paid a price for all the illegals putting such a strain on cities and people. There is plenty of blame to go around. What started this problem in the first place? I appreciate all the comments.
Due process can help ensure that citizens are not deported. If a person is detained and cannot immediately produce their papers, what is the procedure to ensure they really are here illegally? In my mind, this is one of the major areas that due process needs to be applied.
Not everyone has a passport or a birth certificate easily accessible. I didn't have a passport for decades although I do now carry one. Same thing with my birth certificate which my mother lost long ago. It wasn't until recently when I decided that I wanted my passport that I had to go back and get my birth certificate. I do have a NY state driver's license, but not the kind you have to prove citizenship to obtain. So, a year ago I would have had no immediately available proof of my citizenship. Other than due process, what would have stopped the government from deporting me?
Due process doesn't mean no accountability. It just means that one has to go through the system and the government has to prove some violation or some crime. Then the law applies. So for all the violent, illegal immigrants, let them go through due process and once it is determined that they truly are violent and illegal then, and only then, deport them.
I appreciate your comments - I still come back to the question - why were so many allowed to come? If they are here illegally that is the crime that is being addressed. I agree that I do not want anyone sent to a prison under false circumstances. 20 million people? The courts cannot handle what is there now. I agree there needs to be a process- I am accepting at some point ICE and Homan are deporting those who have been arrested for a crime, released, committed more crimes, or deported and came back. If there is a better plan, I am all for it. Thanks for your comments.
Did Barack Obama, AKA the "deporter in chief" apply due process when he expelled and estimated 3 million illegal migrants during his term?
For Tren de Aragua types, due process means answering a couple of questions (1) Are you here legally? If no, then you are subject to immediate deportation already. (2) Do you have or are you likely to have association/habits/ambitions that make you a liability to this nation? If yes, then what the hell are we waiting for?
Your compassion for dangerous people who absolutely intend to do great harm to our society is misplaced. Those people, who were foolishly admitted in great numbers by the late Administration, have no business being here and should be removed, by any means necessary, posthaste. Yes it is possible that a few non-dangerous individuals will be swept up by mistake, and that's unfortunate, but the error rate is never going to be zero. Maybe you should have thought about it before covering every bit of skin with gang-affiliated tatts.
Inviting the world's most desperate, hence dangerous, people to come on down is a Very Bad Idea, yet another expression of the suicidal empathy that is rapidly destroying the West.
My first reaction is; is this written for children? Then I realize, no its for adults with a child like mentality. Maybe, Democrats and Republicans would understand due process better if given the examples of Obama being accused of not being American or Trump being a Russian trader? What would you due if you were accused of being a witch or a communist?
I don't agree with everything you say, but you are dead right about this. Whatever happened to the saying that it is better to let 10 guilty people go free than to let 1 suffer? I get that the people being deported are not citizens. But they are here on American soil and they are entitled (yes, entitled) to due process before being caged. Don't have enough infrastructure to provide them with due process? Then build it out. My understanding is that the illegal border crossings have largely ceased. One would think that would leave an awful lot of resources some of which could be re-directed to such a build out of the systems needed to provide due process.
Zaid, consistent with the laws currently in effect, what due process have they been denied? Seriously, I've read the articles from both sides regarding the various laws involved and it certainly looks to me like the Trump administration has colored within the lines here and it's partisan district judges and their nationwide injunctions that are violating Supreme Court rulings and guidance on this matter. Aliens fall under different legal standards than citizens when it comes to immigration, national security, and foreign policy.
Are you arguing that the LAW should be different than it is? That the administration's ENFORCEMENT of the law needs to be different? Or just selectively opposing the enforcement of our existing laws by the President elected to do so, "because Trump"?
There's a phenomenon I'm getting very tired of where people complain about President Trump NOT because he is BREAKING any laws, but because he is actually ENFORCING the laws that so many previous Presidents simply didn't. If you have an issue with the laws themselves, your complaints really ought to be directed at the Congress that passed them, not the Chief Executive enforcing them.
This is kind of meaningless until we have confirmation that deportees have been deprived of hearings. At this point what the opposition has is Homan, who was angry and emotional. Is he actually claiming that people are being deported without due process? I doubt it.