A pardoned Capitol riot defendant wants her restitution money back. The Justice Department wants to keep it

Justice Department Defends Keeping Restitution From Pardoned Capitol Rioter

Activelifezero.com – The federal government is fighting to retain $2,000 in restitution payments from Felicia Konold, an Arizona woman who was among the first to breach police barricades at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. Konold, who joined a group of Proud Boys during the historic march and later pleaded guilty to obstructing law enforcement, received a presidential pardon but the Justice Department argues she is not entitled to a refund of her court-ordered payments.

Prosecutors have adopted a strict interpretation of eligibility for restitution refunds, focusing on whether defendants appealed their convictions before receiving pardons. Konold’s case illustrates this narrow approach: because her conviction became final before the pardon and was never vacated through an appeal, the government maintains the funds belong to the Capitol repair program.

The Legal Framework Behind the Dispute

When President Trump issued blanket pardons to numerous January 6 defendants in January 2025, the question of restitution payments became complicated. Many rioters had been ordered to pay fines specifically designated for repairing damage to the Capitol building. The Justice Department’s position is that only those whose convictions were still being appealed at the time of their pardon qualify for refunds.

This distinction has created a patchwork of outcomes for rioters seeking their money back. In court filings, prosecutors have consistently argued that a pending appeal at the moment of pardon means the defendant no longer needs to continue paying restitution. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is currently reviewing several cases involving rioters whose convictions were not yet finalized when Trump issued his pardons.

The first significant ruling came in August of last year, when federal Judge John D. Bates determined that Yvonne St Cyr would receive her restitution payments back. In his opinion, Judge Bates clarified that he was not declaring St Cyr innocent of the crimes for which she was convicted. “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,” he wrote.

The Controversial Lawfare Fund

Konold’s situation exists against the backdrop of a much larger financial controversy. Earlier this year, the Justice Department announced plans to establish a nearly $1.8 billion fund for individuals alleged to be victims of weaponized prosecutions. This announcement emerged from a complex settlement between the Internal Revenue Service and former President Donald Trump regarding his leaked tax information from 2020.

The fund quickly faced criticism from lawmakers across both political parties. Many expressed concern that the money could potentially be used to compensate individuals who participated in the Capitol attack and forced the evacuation of Congress for safety reasons. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche initially announced the fund would be eliminated shortly after its creation.

Blanche’s position became a significant obstacle during the Senate confirmation process for his formal appointment as Attorney General. A small but determined group of Republican senators eventually compelled Blanche to make a sworn declaration confirming that the fund was dead. Rather than distributing money through the fund, Blanche has suggested that supposed victims could pursue civil lawsuits to receive compensation for alleged past wrongs by the Justice Department. This approach has already benefited several of Trump’s allies in recent months.

Konold’s Path Through the Justice System

Konold’s journey through the legal system provides a clear example of how the restitution dispute plays out in practice. She was sentenced to 45 days in prison and ordered to pay the $2,000 restitution as part of her guilty plea. On Thursday, prosecutors filed a document stating that Konold “cannot obtain the return of these funds because her conviction was final at the time of the pardon and has not been vacated.”

The government’s stance stands in contrast to its broader efforts to provide payouts to people who former President Trump has identified as victims of Department of Justice weaponization. CNN attempted to reach Konold for comment regarding the ongoing dispute.

Implications for Future Cases

The outcome of Konold’s case and similar appeals could have lasting implications for other January 6 participants seeking restitution refunds. The DC Appeals Court’s eventual ruling will likely establish precedent for how the Justice Department handles these claims going forward. Meanwhile, the broader question of how to compensate those affected by government prosecutions remains unresolved, with civil litigation emerging as the preferred alternative to the now-defunct fund.

“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,” Judge John D. Bates wrote in his August ruling.

As the legal battles continue, the distinction between those who appealed their convictions and those who did not will determine whether hundreds of thousands of dollars in restitution payments return to their original payers or remain dedicated to rebuilding the Capitol that was damaged on that historic day in 2021.