In a new legal development stemming from former President Donald Trump’s blanket pardon for those involved in the January 6 Capitol riot, a federal judge has made it clear that the pardon does not extend to a separate firearms conviction in Maryland.
The case centers on Elias Nick Costianes, who was convicted on gun possession charges after a search of his Maryland home in February 2021. Costianes and attorneys representing Trump’s Justice Department argued that the pardon should apply, pointing to the fact that the search warrant was issued based on his presence at the Capitol on January 6. However, U.S. District Judge James Bredar ruled otherwise, concluding that the conviction is not directly tied to the Capitol events.
Judge Bredar, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, acknowledged that the search and subsequent evidence may not have occurred if Costianes had not participated in the events at the Capitol. Still, he emphasized that the wording of Trump’s pardon does not cover investigations or incidents simply linked to January 6. Instead, it applies only to specific offenses committed at or near the Capitol on that day.
“The language of the pardon is limited,” Bredar wrote, stressing that it applies to “offenses related to events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.” According to the judge, that language does not stretch far enough to cover unrelated criminal activity that was only uncovered because of the Capitol investigation.
The court’s decision pushes back on what has become a broader legal question about how far Trump’s pardon actually extends. Many of the legal arguments made by defendants and former administration officials rest on the idea that the January 6 pardon should be interpreted broadly. In this instance, the court declined to do so.
Judge Bredar also noted that if Trump had intended to grant broader immunity, the pardon could have been written to reflect that. It was not. Instead, it was tailored to apply specifically to those offenses that were clearly connected to the January 6 riot and occurred in the immediate area of the Capitol.
This ruling leaves open a key option for the Trump administration. As the sitting president, Trump could still issue a new, more expansive pardon to cover the Maryland case if he chooses. In fact, in any of these situations where courts are questioning the scope of the original pardon, the administration has the power to bypass legal uncertainty by drafting a new one. So far, however, that has not happened.
For now, the court’s decision stands as another setback for the administration’s attempts to broaden the impact of Trump’s January 6 clemency. While some defendants have tried to use the pardon as a shield in related investigations or charges, judges have largely been reluctant to accept such broad interpretations.
This latest ruling reinforces the idea that while the president’s pardon power is expansive, it is not limitless, and the actual language of the document matters. In Costianes’ case, the judge found that the pardon simply did not apply to an offense that, while discovered through a Jan. 6-related investigation, was not part of the actual Capitol riot.
As litigation surrounding January 6 continues to play out in courts across the country, this decision could influence how future cases are argued and decided, particularly when defendants attempt to invoke the former president’s sweeping pardon as a defense.
For now, Trump’s legal team may need to consider issuing new pardons on a case-by-case basis if they want to secure broader protections for individuals like Costianes. Until then, the judiciary appears set on applying a narrow reading of what Trump’s Jan. 6 pardon actually covers.
