Judge to Jan. 6 Defendant: Pardon Isn't a Refund

A federal judge on Wednesday rejected a bid by a Capitol riot defendant to recoup court-ordered restitution, ruling that President Donald Trump's sweeping pardon does not entitle recipients to reclaim fines already paid, Mediaite reported.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan on Wednesday denied a request from a Jan. 6 defendant seeking reimbursement of restitution fees, ruling that the pardon did not erase payments already made to victims or the government.

The case involves Stacy Wade Hager of Texas, who was convicted of four misdemeanor counts for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol. He argued that his conviction and sentence — later vacated after Trump's executive order — should entitle him to a refund of $570 in restitution and fees he paid before the pardon.

Chutkan disagreed, writing in her three-page opinion that "a pardon cannot authorize reimbursement once money has been paid to a party."

Hager's charges included entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds; disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds; disorderly conduct in a Capitol building; and parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building.

He was sentenced in April 2023 to seven months' incarceration on the first two counts and three months on the remaining counts, to be served concurrently. He was also ordered to pay a $70 special assessment fee and $500 in restitution to the Architect of the Capitol.

While Hager's appeal was still pending, Trump issued a blanket pardon for roughly 1,500 individuals involved in the Capitol riot, along with 14 sentence commutations. Trump's executive order also directed the Department of Justice to dismiss all remaining Jan. 6 prosecutions with prejudice.

Despite the dismissal of Hager's case, Chutkan ruled that previously paid restitution was not recoverable, even under the terms of a presidential pardon. The ruling came despite a surprising stance by DOJ prosecutors, who appeared to support Hager's reimbursement claim — a position the judge labeled "curious."

"The government concurs, acknowledging that pardons generally do not 'make amends for the past' nor do they afford any 'relief for what has been suffered by the offender.' But it takes the curious position that in this 'unusual situation,' reimbursement is appropriate," Chutkan wrote.

Justice Department attorneys cited Nelson v. Colorado, a 2017 Supreme Court ruling that states are required to refund fines and restitution when a conviction is overturned and no retrial is held. But Chutkan rejected that application, holding that Hager's case was not vacated by a reviewing court ruling but dismissed after a presidential pardon.