18 U.S. Code § 1752 and January 6 Prosecutions
The legal cases stemming from the January 6, 2021, Capitol breach have drawn intense scrutiny, particularly regarding the application of 18 U.S. Code § 1752. Originally designed to safeguard areas occupied by Secret Service protectees, this statute has been wielded as a legal sledgehammer against hundreds of individuals involved in the events of that day. Critics argue that its use raises significant legal and procedural questions, with implications for due process, enforcement standards, and constitutional rights. Spoiler alert: they’re not wrong.
Understanding 18 U.S. Code § 1752
This statute defines “restricted areas” as zones designated for the protection of individuals under Secret Service protection, such as the President or Vice President. These areas must be clearly marked and communicated to the public to ensure reasonable awareness of their restricted status. Translation: You can’t just slap a couple of signs around and call it a day.
Defense attorneys in January 6 cases have challenged whether these requirements were met. Evidence suggests that signage around the Capitol was sparse, vague, and lacked the formal language typically associated with Secret Service-designated areas. Furthermore, the Capitol Police and Secret Service seemed to be on different planets when it came to coordinating restricted area designations.
Attorney Roger Roots, representing some defendants, likened the situation to charging someone for speeding on a road with no speed limit signs.
“Without proper signage or notification, the application of § 1752 becomes legally dubious,” Roots argued. And honestly, he’s got a point.
Thousands gathered on January 6 for speeches and protests, only to find permits revoked mid-event and ambiguous signs scattered about like afterthoughts. Roots further compared the enforcement to “charging someone for entering a restricted area that wasn’t even properly designated as restricted.”
Courtroom Evidence and Testimony
Prosecutors have presented evidence like emails vaguely referencing Vice President Mike Pence’s presence and grainy photographs of signs to support the use of § 1752. Defense attorneys, however, argue these “receipts” fall far short of what’s required. Repeated requests for formal documentation designating the Capitol as a restricted area? Crickets.
Testimony from USSS Agent Lanelle Hawa, who is trotted out by the government for her testimony hasn’t helped clear things up either. It’s raised more questions than answers about the adequacy of preparations and the clarity of restricted area boundaries. Critics have accused the prosecution of cherry-picking evidence and leaning on overly rehearsed testimony. Or as Roots put it:
“The foundation for many of these charges appears built on quicksand.”
Ouch.
Insights from the January 6 Select Committee Hearings
The January 6 Select Committee hearings offered even more fodder for skeptics. The systemic failures in security planning and coordination were laid bare. Take this illuminating exchange between Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and then-U.S. Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund:
- Lofgren: “What about resources needed for arresting protesters?”
- Sund: “It was a cite and release process with a $50 fine. Custodial arrests would require buses, and significant charges would be handled differently.”
- Lofgren: “Was D.C. going to arrest people?”
- Sund: “Yes.”
- Lofgren: “What about potential threats after the count is done?”
- Sund: “We were preparing for a long day.”
- Lofgren: “Do we have floodlights to monitor areas?”
- Sund: “Yes, we have that capability.”
- Lofgren: “What about the status of the National Guard?”
- Sund: “The National Guard could be activated with an emergency declaration from the board. They were a phone call away and ready if needed.”
Despite Sund’s reassurances, the lack of specific deployment numbers and minimal pre-planning made January 6 a logistical nightmare. Add in revoked permits and unclear signage, and it’s no wonder the day descended into chaos.
Welcome to Legal Fantasyland
Unlike when the Ungovernables greeted Trump at the Libertarian Convention—where the Secret Service went all out with proper signage and clear protocols—the Capitol’s restricted zones on January 6 were a joke. Permits for lawful gatherings were revoked on the fly, and the smattering of “No Trespassing” signs were about as useful as a “Keep Out” sign on a treehouse. Roger Roots called it out for what it was: a legal farce.
At the 2024 Libertarian National Convention, the Secret Service nailed it. Large, unambiguous signs referenced § 1752 and left no room for misunderstanding. If the government can get it right for a partisan political event, why not for January 6? The answer seems to be that clarity and fairness weren’t exactly high on the priority list that day.
Due Process? More Like ‘Do Whatever You Want
The bungled application of § 1752 isn’t just a bad look; it’s a symptom of deeper issues. Allegations of selective enforcement, withholding exculpatory evidence, and inconsistent application of legal standards have critics sounding the alarm. If the government can cut corners here, what’s stopping them from doing it again?
Roots describes the situation as “systemic malpractice,” citing cases of allegedly withheld evidence, tampered discovery files, and perjured testimony. The judicial process, mired in confusion and politicization, has become a spectacle—and not the good kind.
Representative Zoe Lofgren’s recent statement reflects the stakes: “It’s important for members of the committee to let him [Donald Trump] know: We will not be intimidated.” Sure, but at what cost? Justice shouldn’t come with an asterisk.
Rules Are Hard, Apparently
The January 6 prosecutions under § 1752 are a cautionary tale of what happens when laws are misapplied in the heat of political battles. The lack of proper signage, coordination, and clear evidence has exposed the cracks in the judicial system. Ensuring fairness and transparency is critical—not just for the defendants, but for the public’s trust in the rule of law.
As Roger Roots succinctly put it,
“If you’re going to prosecute people under § 1752, at least follow your own damn rules. Anything less is not just incompetence—it’s an affront to justice.”
