To answer the question of whether the United States needs a new domestic terrorism statute, we first have to explore how well, if at all, seditious conspiracy is already performing as a substitute.

A U.S. District judge dismissed the felony charge that has become the single most important weapon in the government’s arsenal in Capitol insurrection cases.

When Capitol riot defendant Guy Reffitt goes to trial before a federal jury in Washington, D.C., prosecutors plan to present a shock-and-awe campaign of video, audio and other digital evidence.

In January, a group of North Carolina voters filed a 34-page petition to block Rep. Madison Cawthorn’s name from appearing on the 2022 primary ballot. What’s behind the petition?

A Washington Post analysis suggested that the sentences of Jan. 6 Capitol Riot defendants may reflect political bias on the part of the judges handling these cases.

 The indictment sets out the most serious criminal charge yet used against any of the Capitol rioters, but it also shows the limits of the criminal law in responding to Jan. 6.

Two groups appear to have played an outsized role in the events of that day, and their cases should hold particular interest for those trying to understand the causes of the insurrection. 

D.C. District Court Judges have handled the Jan. 6 cases in a way that exemplifies Chief Justice Roberts's defense of the "independent judiciary" as "something we should all be thankful for.”

On Dec. 10, U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich found that a central felony charge in a large subset of the Jan. 6 cases had been properly invoked and was not unconstitutionally vague. This is likely a ...