Federal judge ordered refunds to two pardoned January 6 defendants, returning $570 apiece after vacating convictions and triggering a political uproar that has conservatives both relieved and skeptical.

Two people who entered the Capitol on January 6, 2021 — Christopher Price and Cynthia Ballenger — just won a narrow victory when a federal judge reversed course and directed refunds for restitution they paid after conviction. Each will get $570 back after their convictions were vacated, a result tied to their later pardons. The move has become a flashpoint for critics who see it as both legally sound and politically charged.

Their cases trace back to a chaotic day that sent hundreds into the Capitol through the Senate Carriage Door, according to later federal findings. Price and Ballenger faced charges the months after the breach and were convicted before the legal path shifted under new presidential action. Those convictions were vacated after President Trump issued broad pardons early in his second term.

President Trump pardoned roughly 1,600 January 6 defendants in one of his first acts after being sworn in, a decision his supporters called a correction of heavy-handed prosecutions. Conservatives argued these Americans were treated worse than similar protesters and deserved legal relief. The pardons reopened the status of fines and fees paid after conviction, creating a narrow path for refunds in some cases.

Judge James Boasberg initially denied Price and Ballenger’s request for restitution repayment back in July, signaling reluctance to unwind financial penalties tied to earlier convictions. But the judge issued a new 12-page order reversing that denial and concluding the vacatur of convictions might entitle the defendants to refunds. The change surprised observers and sparked immediate commentary from both sides of the aisle.

“Even if Defendants’ pardon does not entitle them to refunds, the resulting vacatur of their convictions might,”

That sentence from Boasberg’s opinion is central to the decision and has been quoted widely. It lays out the court’s reasoning: the technical erasure of a conviction can carry practical consequences for money paid under the old judgment. Conservatives view the language as a recognition that law and fairness sometimes require correcting downstream effects of convictions that no longer stand.

Not everyone sees the reversal as purely legal. Some on the right suspect the judge acted to avoid a bigger fight with a conservative electorate energized by Trump’s pardon move. Judicial decisions are never read in a vacuum, and this one lands during a charged political moment where every ruling invites scrutiny. That skepticism fueled quick reactions from Trump and GOP lawmakers.

President Trump has publicly attacked Judge Boasberg, calling him a “radical left lunatic,” a line that lands with voters who already distrust parts of the federal judiciary. Several GOP members pushed further, proposing measures to remove or curtail judges they say have overreached. They point to Boasberg’s prior rulings on immigration policy and his handling of investigations that touched on high-profile political figures.

Lawmakers have floated impeachment language and drafted bills aimed at judges seen as blocking conservative priorities, alleging overreach in cases tied to election challenges and law enforcement probes. Supporters insist these moves are about accountability and restoring balance between branches, while critics warn against politicizing the bench. The debate reflects deeper tensions over how far courts should weigh in on controversial executive decisions.

The refund order itself is modest on its face, but its ripple effects could matter for other pardoned defendants who had financial penalties linked to convictions later wiped away. For Republicans who backed broad pardons, the decision underscores a point they make often: legal technicalities should not perpetuate penalties once a conviction is undone. Whether this ruling becomes a legal precedent or a narrow fix will be something to watch as similar cases move through the courts.