Which defendants from January 6 2021 were charged with seditious conspiracy or insurrection-related statutes and what were the outcomes?
Executive summary
Fourteen high-profile defendants associated with the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers were prosecuted on seditious-conspiracy or closely related insurrection statutes arising from the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack; leaders of both groups were convicted at trial and received multi-year sentences while some co-defendants were acquitted of sedition but convicted on other felonies [1] [2] [3] [4]. The Department of Justice has said it charged dozens with sedition-related counts in its wide-ranging Jan. 6 prosecutions and continues to litigate and litigatively define how the rare seditious-conspiracy statute applies to political violence [5] [6].
1. Who the government charged with seditious conspiracy and related "insurrection" statutes
Federal prosecutors brought seditious-conspiracy counts primarily against leaders and members of two organized extremist groups: the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, and — by the Justice Department’s count in media reporting — as many as 18 people were charged with seditious conspiracy in the broader Jan. 6 investigation [1] [5]. Notable Proud Boys defendants charged with seditious conspiracy include Henry “Enrique” Tarrio, Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs and Zachary Rehl; Dominic Pezzola was charged alongside them but was acquitted of seditious conspiracy at trial even as he was convicted of other felony counts [7] [1] [4]. Among the Oath Keepers, founder Stewart Rhodes and Florida chapter leader Kelly Meggs were charged and convicted, and successive trials produced convictions for additional members including Joseph Hackett, Roberto Minuta, David Moerschel and Edward Vallejo in separate proceedings [2] [3] [8] [9].
2. Trial outcomes: convictions, acquittals of sedition, and collateral convictions
Juries found leaders of both the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers guilty of seditious conspiracy and related counts such as conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding and conspiracy to prevent Members of Congress from discharging their duties, marking successful uses of the rare sedition statute in U.S. courts [7] [2] [1]. The Proud Boys trial resulted in guilty verdicts for Tarrio, Nordean, Biggs and Rehl while a fifth defendant, Pezzola, was acquitted of seditious conspiracy though convicted of obstruction and destruction of property [7] [1] [4]. For the Oath Keepers, juries convicted Stewart Rhodes and Kelly Meggs in an earlier trial and later convicted four more members — Hackett, Minuta, Moerschel and Vallejo — in a separate seven-week trial that produced guilty verdicts on seditious-conspiracy counts [8] [3] [9] [2]. Other defendants charged with sedition pleaded guilty in some cases, as prosecutors have reported a mix of guilty pleas and trial convictions across the sedition docket [5].
3. Sentences, disparities, and prosecutorial aims
Sentences have varied widely: prosecutors sought heavy punishments and terrorism enhancements in some cases, and judges imposed lengthy terms for top leaders — Enrique Tarrio received a 22-year sentence according to reporting and Stewart Rhodes was sentenced to 18 years before later executive action altered his custody status — while several Oath Keepers in a later trial received comparatively modest prison terms of roughly 3 to 4½ years [6] [10] [11]. The disparate outcomes—long terms for certain leaders, shorter terms for rank-and-file conspirators, and acquittals on sedition for some who nonetheless face other serious convictions—reflect prosecutors’ effort to use seditious-conspiracy counts to signal that organized, preplanned violence to block the transfer of power is among the gravest post-Jan. 6 offenses, even as defense teams and some observers contend the statute’s elements are difficult to prove and politically fraught [12] [8].
4. Legal significance, open questions, and the broader prosecutorial record
These prosecutions represent the rare modern revival of the seditious-conspiracy statute and have helped federal prosecutors secure convictions for organized efforts to use force to disrupt the electoral transfer of power, yet questions remain about how broadly sedition should be applied and about consistency in sentencing across co-defendants and groups; scholars, defense lawyers and the DOJ have publicly debated terrorism enhancements and the evidentiary threshold required to prove a conspiracy to use force [12] [8]. The Justice Department emphasizes convictions of group leaders as crucial to defending the peaceful transfer of power, while critics point to acquittals on sedition for some defendants and variable sentencing as fuel for arguments about selective enforcement or overreach — disputes that will likely persist in appeals and in continued public discussion [7] [11] [4].