The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up an appeal from John Nassif, a Florida man convicted for his involvement in the January 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol, leaving intact a lower court ruling that continues to shape how the federal government prosecutes hundreds of related cases.
Nassif had asked the high court to review the constitutionality of a federal statute that prohibits “parading, picketing, and demonstrating” inside the Capitol building. His legal team argued the law violates the First Amendment’s protections for free speech and peaceful assembly—an argument that has surfaced repeatedly in January 6 prosecutions, as the charge remains one of the most commonly used by federal prosecutors.
The 57-year-old was sentenced to seven months in prison after being convicted on multiple misdemeanor counts, including disorderly conduct and violent entry. Prosecutors initially sought a harsher sentence ranging from 10 to 16 months.
According to Nassif’s public defenders, he entered the Capitol nearly an hour after the building had already been breached and stayed inside for less than 10 minutes. They characterized his actions as “core First Amendment expression” that was “in no way disruptive,” arguing that his conduct fell squarely within constitutionally protected speech.
Those arguments failed in the lower courts. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected Nassif’s claims, ruling that the Capitol is not a public forum open to demonstrations. In its decision, a three-judge panel held that the government may impose reasonable, viewpoint-neutral restrictions inside the building to preserve order and security.
“Nassif has not established that the Capitol buildings are, by policy or practice, generally open for use by members of the public to voice whatever concerns they may have — much less to use for protests, pickets, or demonstrations,” the panel wrote.
Nassif’s petition to the Supreme Court pointed to a legal conflict between the D.C. Circuit and the D.C. Court of Appeals. While the federal appellate court has classified the Capitol as a nonpublic forum—granting the government broader authority to regulate speech—the D.C. Court of Appeals has previously recognized certain spaces, such as the Capitol Rotunda, as public forums where speech restrictions must be narrowly tailored.