A Florida man charged with illegal "parading" asked the Supreme Court to hear his appeal this week, and if they agree, it could impact 400 similarly charged defendants.
57-year-old John Nassif has already been convicted and served a 7-month jail sentence, but he still believes the charge was wrong and wants to see it reversed.
Parading was not the only charge levied against Nassif; he was also charged with disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building and violent entry in a Capitol building.
The judge who oversaw Nassif's case, U.S District Judge John Bates, previously rejected dismissing the parading charge, saying that courts had ruled the Capitol is a “nonpublic forum” in which government is allowed to “limit First Amendment activities so long as the restrictions are ‘reasonable in light of the purpose of the forum and are viewpoint neutral.'”
The D.C. appeals court agreed, ruling against Nassif's lawyers' argument that the parading and picketing statute was “so unclear that it is entirely invalid and cannot be applied to anyone, including him.”
On the other hand, the D.C. Circuit of Appeals labeled the Capitol a public forum.
But Nassif's legal team noticed a discrepancy between the two arguments; is the Capital Rotunda a "nonpublic forum" or a public forum?
What's the difference? If it is a public forum, fewer restrictions can be applied, including restrictions on picketing and parading.
Nassif wants the Supreme Court to decide which of these two terms apply, believing that it could help his case.
The picketing and parading charge is the most common one among January 6 defendants, impacting 460 of the more than 1,450 cases to date.
If the justices throw it out, it will be another big blow to January 6 prosecutors, who thought they could throw the book at defendants in an unprecedented way.
The court has not yet said it would hear the case, and it could be months before a decision is made.
Four out of the nine justices have to agree to hear the case on the merits.
Last month, the court ruled that obstruction charges did not apply to more than 120 defendants and has been improperly used.
