The Supreme Court sent shockwaves through the corrupt Biden Justice Department on Tuesday. The high court announced it wants the DOJ to respond to a petition from a January 6 sightseer who received a one-year prison sentence for peacefully walking in and out of the US Capitol.

Russell Alford was given a one-year sentence for disorderly conduct and “disruptive behavior” in the Capitol, even though he never hurt anyone or damaged anything. He walked in and out like the rest of the tourists that day.

By agreeing to hear Alford’s petition, the Supreme Court has signaled that it could very well vacate the sentences of more than 1,000 January 6 political prisoners.

As of January of this year, 1,156 peaceful January 6 protesters have been charged with engaging in disorderly or disruptive conduct. 1,021 have been charged with disorderly or disruptive conduct in a Capitol building. About 1,000 of them have been hit with both misdemeanor charges. These are the most common charges that the 1,300+ total January 6 peaceful protesters have been hit with.

None of the people facing these charges did anything violent or caused any property damage. They were welcomed into the building by police officers who were high-fiving them and holding doors open for them, they wandered around for a while, and they peacefully left when asked to do so.

Russell Alford was one of those 1,000+ peaceful sightseers that day. Unlike most defendants, however, Alford chose not to take a plea deal for a lesser sentence from the feds. He chose to go to trial because he did not do anything disorderly or disruptive that day. He was there to protest the election being stolen from Donald Trump.

Because Alford exercised his right to a trial, he forfeited the chance to “accept responsibility” for his actions, so he didn’t get a reduced sentence. The judge who originally oversaw his case was Tanya Chutkan. She’s the judge who used to work at the same law firm as Hunter Biden, and who will be overseeing Donald Trump’s January 6 case brought by Jack Smith. Chutkan found Alford guilty and threw the book at him, sentencing him to one year in prison for those two misdemeanor charges.

Alford appealed against his sentence on the grounds that he hadn’t done anything violent or disruptive. How was he disorderly or disruptive? He didn’t even yell at anyone. He just walked peacefully in and out of the building like everyone else was doing that day (other than the handful of violent undercover feds).

In January, a three-judge panel at the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Alford—and all other January 6 defendants—could be found guilty of “disorderly” or “disruptive” conduct even if they didn’t commit violence or cause any vandalism.

“Even passive, quiet and nonviolent conduct can be disorderly,” ruled the panel, comparing the January 6 protesters to protesters who block traffic.

Alford has appealed the decision and now the Supreme Court has caused a political earthquake by asking the DOJ to respond to Alford’s petition. This is hyuuuuge!

If the Supreme Court agreed with the DC appellate court’s decision, they wouldn’t have to do anything. They could just ignore Alford’s petition and let the lower court’s decision stand. By asking the DOJ to respond, the Supreme Court is signaling that it thinks the DC appellate court and Chutkan got it wrong.

This is an opportunity for the Supreme Court to overturn one of the left’s many double standards in American society today. How many times have we seen liberal protesters douse themselves in fake blood and take over the US Capitol, protest the Supreme Court justices at their houses, or take over state Capitols in red states, just because they disagree with policies? Too many times to count, obviously.

None of those protesters ever get jammed up with charges of disruptive or disorderly conduct. They certainly don’t get sentenced to a year in prison for engaging in a First Amendment-protected protest. If the Supreme Court overrules the appellate court on this decision, it would vacate the wrongful and unjust convictions of more than 1,000 peaceful MAGA protesters.

That would be even better than a presidential pardon. President Trump has promised to pardon these people, but that would still allow their unjust convictions to stand. They’d still have to mark that they were convicted of a crime when applying for jobs and so forth. If the Supreme Court overrules these convictions, they’re free and clear.

This is BIG!