A federal judge has authorized a $2,200 refund to a Jan. 6 rioter whose felony conviction was dropped after President Donald Trump issued a blanket pardon to those who breached the Capitol or attacked police.
It is the first time a pardoned Jan. 6 defendant has received a refund of the fines and restitution that many were ordered to pay, even though the Justice Department endorsed the refunds in April.
U.S. District Judge John Bates approved the return of the $2,000 restitution paid by Yvonne St. Cyr, concluding that because she had appealed her conviction — and the appeal was still pending when Trump’s pardon ended her case altogether — she was no longer guilty in the eyes of the law and was entitled to the return of her funds. She was also refunded a separate $270 penalty applied after her sentencing.
“Sometimes a judge is called upon to do what the law requires, even if it may seem at odds with what justice or one’s initial instincts might warrant,” Bates, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote. “This is one such occasion.”
Bates presided over a jury trial that resulted in St. Cyr’s conviction in March 2023. She was convicted of two felony counts of impeding police during a civil disorder, egging on rioters as they battered police near the Capitol’s Lower West Terrace tunnel. St. Cyr also remained defiant, telling Bates she “did the right thing” on Jan. 6 just before he sentenced her to 30 months in prison.
Despite his reluctance, Bates became the first judge to approve the return of fines and restitution paid by a Jan. 6 rioter who was subsequently let off the hook by Trump’s mass pardon. Several other judges rejected similar efforts, saying that even if Trump had pardoned them, they could not recoup funds they had already paid as part of their sentences. Several contended they were unable to authorize refunds because the money had already been paid into the U.S. Treasury — and only Congress can approve such withdrawals.
But Bates said his colleagues were mistaken, overlooking the court’s power to approve a financial judgment, which he said did not require additional approval from Congress.
“Upon vacating St Cyr’s conviction, the D.C. Circuit [Court of Appeals] did not determine that St Cyr is innocent of the crimes for which she was convicted. Nor has this Court done so,” Bates wrote. “But, because of the vacatur and subsequent dismissal, the law presumes that she is innocent. As a result, the government has no right to retain St Cyr’s $2,270, which the law deems always hers.”