Intelligence. Accountability. Analysis.
Est. 2022 · Washington, D.C.
The Congressional Times
We follow the data, not the narrative
◆ Live Intelligence
Loading...
Analysis Loading today's analysis...
Legal Intelligence

DOJ Motion Ends Proud Boys Seditious Conspiracy Convictions in Federal Court

DOJ Motion Ends Proud Boys Seditious Conspiracy Convictions in Federal Court

A federal judge's reluctant dismissal of jury-rendered convictions raises procedural questions about executive branch authority over concluded criminal cases.

Gab-E Intelligence Platform · July 11, 2026

A federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump during his first term dismissed seditious conspiracy convictions against three Proud Boys leaders on Friday, July 11, 2026, acting on a motion filed by the Department of Justice, according to a report by The Guardian. U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, in a seven-page memorandum, granted the DOJ's motion to vacate the convictions of Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, and Zachary Rehl — all of whom had been found guilty by a jury of seditious conspiracy in connection with the January 6, 2021 breach of the U.S. Capitol.

Judge Kelly's memorandum, described in the Guardian report as reflecting reluctance on the part of the court, indicates the dismissal was driven by a DOJ motion rather than by any finding that the original jury verdict was legally deficient. The convictions had been secured under 18 U.S.C. § 2384, the federal seditious conspiracy statute, following a trial that resulted in guilty verdicts from a civilian jury. The court record, including the full seven-page memorandum, is filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and constitutes the authoritative public source on the legal rationale applied.

The DOJ's decision to file a dismissal motion in a case where convictions had already been upheld through the trial phase is a prosecutorial action governed by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a), which requires leave of court before the government may dismiss a pending case. Judge Kelly's grant of that motion — despite his noted reluctance — reflects the legal standard under Rule 48(a), which courts have historically interpreted to require judicial approval primarily to protect defendants' interests, not to substitute judicial judgment for prosecutorial discretion. Legal scholars and practitioners have debated the limits of that standard in cases involving post-conviction posture; the scope of those limits is not resolved by the memorandum as described in available reporting.

Nordean, Biggs, and Rehl were among several Proud Boys members prosecuted following January 6. Their cases, along with those of Oath Keepers members prosecuted separately, represented the most serious federal charges brought in connection with that day's events. Sentencing records and trial transcripts are publicly available through the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia's PACER system and constitute the complete record of those proceedings.

What remains unknown from currently available public reporting is the specific legal arguments advanced by DOJ in its dismissal motion, whether the government simultaneously moved to dismiss charges against other January 6 defendants facing similar convictions, and whether the dismissed individuals face any remaining state-level charges. The full DOJ motion and Judge Kelly's seven-page memorandum, both accessible via PACER under the relevant case dockets, would provide complete answers to those questions.

Today's Analysis
Loading...
Latest Intelligence
Congressional Intelligence
Loading...
Financial Intelligence
Loading...
Geopolitical Intelligence
Loading...
Follow the MoneyGab-E Political Intelligence Investigation
Loading...
Opinion & Analysis
Loading...
Archive
Loading...
About
Our Mission

We Follow the Data, Not the Narrative

The Congressional Times exists because public records are public — and the analysis built from them should not be exclusive to those who can afford $60,000-a-year intelligence subscriptions.

Every story published in The Congressional Times is sourced to a verifiable public record: a court filing, a Senate lobbying disclosure, an FEC contribution record, a USASpending contract, or a verified news report. We state our sources inline. We show our math. When we are wrong, we say so publicly.

We do not editorialize in news coverage. We do not use loaded language. Both political parties are held to identical standards.

The Follow the Money investigations are the heart of this publication. Each begins with Gab-E Political Intelligence running against 10+ million government records before a single word of editorial is written.

Powered by Gab-E, an elite global intelligence platform built to democratize political and financial intelligence.

Editorial Policy
Editorial Standards & Corrections Policy

How We Source, Verify, and Correct Our Work

Every factual claim in a Congressional Times story is checked against a primary source: a government filing, a court record, a direct quote, before publication. When a claim can't be verified or doesn't hold up as originally reported, we drop it or reframe it. We do not publish disputed claims as settled fact.

When we get it wrong: we correct the story directly, note the correction and date at the bottom of the piece, and update the record. We do not quietly edit and move on.

Bylines: stories with a named byline are written and fact-checked by that person. Stories without a byline are sourced from Gab-E Political Intelligence, our automated research platform, and are labeled as such.

Ownership: The Congressional Times is published by Gab-E Holdings LLC. Gab-E, our intelligence platform, powers our sourcing and research pipeline.

Corrections or concerns: support@gab-e.com