The United States Justice Department is refusing to return $2,000 in restitution paid by a woman pardoned over the attack on the Capitol on 6 January 2021, arguing that her conviction was already final when the pardon was issued.
Felicia Konold, from Arizona, pleaded guilty to obstructing law enforcement during the attack. Prosecutors set out their position in a court filing on Thursday.
What is the legal argument?
Prosecutors say Konold cannot recover the money because her conviction was final at the time of the pardon and has not been vacated. CNN reported that the department has taken a narrow approach to who qualifies for a refund.
Defendants who had appealed their convictions, leaving them unfinalised when the blanket pardons were issued, have received the department’s support in seeking refunds. Those who did not appeal have not. The Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia is weighing challenges from several defendants caught by that distinction.
| Detail | Position |
|---|---|
| Amount in dispute | $2,000 |
| DOJ argument | Conviction final before pardon |
| Total restitution collected | About $400,000 |
| Capitol damage | About $3m |
Can pardoned January 6 defendants reclaim restitution?
Whether defendants pardoned over the 6 January 2021 attack on the United States Capitol can reclaim restitution they already paid depends on whether their conviction was final when the pardon was issued. The Justice Department has argued that those whose convictions were final and have not been vacated cannot recover the money, while supporting refunds for defendants whose appeals were still pending. In a filing on 6 August 2026, prosecutors opposed the return of $2,000 paid by Felicia Konold, an Arizona woman who pleaded guilty to obstructing law enforcement. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is weighing challenges from several defendants. In August 2025, Judge John D. Bates became the first to order restitution returned, in the case of Yvonne St Cyr. Restitution payments were built into sentences to fund repairs to the Capitol.
What did the courts decide previously?
In August last year, Judge John D. Bates became the first to order restitution returned, in the case of Yvonne St Cyr. He wrote that he had not found her “innocent of the crimes for which she was convicted”, and described the ruling as what the law required rather than what instinct might suggest.
Courts have otherwise mostly rejected the department’s earlier arguments in favour of refunds.
How does this fit the wider picture?
The position contrasts with a separate effort to compensate the same group. A fund of $1.776 billion, created from a settlement between the tax authorities and President Donald Trump over his leaked tax records, was intended to pay people the president describes as victims of politically motivated prosecutions.
It drew bipartisan criticism and became a point of contention during Todd Blanche’s confirmation, largely over concerns it could channel payments to Capitol rioters. Blanche later declared the fund closed under pressure from Senate Republicans, suggesting claimants pursue civil suits instead.
Senate Democrats have written to Attorney General Pam Bondi opposing refunds, noting that about $400,000 was collected in restitution against roughly $3m of damage to the Capitol.
Related coverage
Sources for this report
The Redline News Desk
The Redline News desk files and edits world reporting. Every story carries the sources it was built from, and corrections are published on the story itself.
Leave a Reply