U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly dismissed the convictions of four Proud Boys members on Friday — then spent the rest of his ruling explaining how much he hated doing it. The judge, a Trump appointee, wrote that "no one should mistake the Court's granting of the Government's motion for its agreement with those decisions."
That's judicial code for "I think they're guilty but the law says otherwise."
The case involved Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl, and Dominic Pezzola — all convicted in connection with the January 6, 2021 Capitol breach. Pezzola was accused of breaking a Capitol window with a stolen police riot shield, creating what prosecutors called "the first entry point through which hundreds of rioters streamed into the building." Former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio had already received a full pardon.
Judge Kelly cited Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and acknowledged that "the Constitution and Rule 48(a) require it." Required. Not suggested. Not recommended. Required. The law left him no option, and he wanted everyone to know he resented that fact.
He went further, describing January 6 as "a perilous event" that assaulted "police officers, Congress, and the Constitution's mechanism to facilitate the peaceful transfer of power." He even mused that "if this Nation's experiment in self-government is to last another 250 years" — as if dropping charges against four men who've already spent years in legal limbo somehow threatens the republic.
The dismissals follow President Trump's clemency order issued on January 20, 2025, his first day back in office. The DOJ subsequently moved to dismiss the cases, and judges across the D.C. district court have been processing those motions ever since. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta is currently reviewing a similar case involving Oath Keepers members.
Here's what Judge Kelly's little editorial tells us. For four years, federal prosecutors pursued these men with the full weight of the justice system. Seditious conspiracy charges. Maximum sentences. The works. And now a judge — one appointed by the very president who pardoned them — admits the Constitution compels dismissal but wants the record to reflect his personal disapproval.
When a judge has to write "the Constitution requires" him to do something and simultaneously signals he wishes it didn't, that's not jurisprudence. That's a man telling you exactly how the system operated when different people were running it — and how badly he wishes they still were.
The Constitution required it. The judge complied. And the four-year prosecution that was always more political than legal quietly ends with a whimper dressed up as a warning.
