Pritzker’s Illegal J6 Blacklist

Power, unchecked, is a dangerous thing. When wielded without restraint, it ceases to be an instrument of justice and instead becomes a cudgel of retribution. Illinois Governor JB Pritzker’s decree—permanently banning anyone who protested, rioted, or was arrested at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, from state employment, even if they were later pardoned—is not merely an overreach. It is an outright repudiation of constitutional principles. It targets political dissenters, imposes punishment without trial, and nullifies the legal authority of a pardon.

If allowed to stand, Pritzker’s order would set a chilling precedent. It would codify a new and dangerous standard where political leaders can impose lifelong penalties on citizens based on ideology, guilt by association, and perceived moral shortcomings. It does not matter whether one engaged in violence or simply exercised their First Amendment right to protest. It does not matter whether one was convicted or later cleared by the justice system. This decree is a test case for whether due process, free speech, and the rule of law still hold sway in America—or whether they will be subject to the whims of political enforcers.

The constitutional violations embedded in this policy are glaring. It flies in the face of the First Amendment, violates the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’ guarantees of due process, and blatantly constitutes a bill of attainder, a form of punishment expressly forbidden by the Constitution. If challenged in court, this decree will collapse under legal scrutiny. But the mere fact that it has been proposed should be enough to alarm anyone who values the foundations of American liberty.

The First Amendment guarantees not just the right to free speech but also the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances. While the events of January 6 were chaotic, they were not universally violent. Thousands of Americans gathered in Washington, D.C., that day. Some engaged in criminal activity, but many others simply protested. This ban does not differentiate between them—it criminalizes participation itself.

A state government blacklisting individuals solely based on their presence at a protest is an egregious violation of free speech. The Supreme Court has long upheld that the government cannot impose political penalties on individuals simply for engaging in protest, even controversial or unpopular ones. In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Court ruled that speech—even inflammatory speech—is protected unless it incites imminent lawless action. By barring individuals from government employment because of their participation in a political protest, Pritzker’s order is indistinguishable from the loyalty oaths and blacklists that America has long since condemned.

Even more insidious is the inclusion of pardoned individuals in the employment ban. A pardon is a full legal restoration of rights. It is not a loophole or a technicality; it is an explicit declaration that an individual is no longer subject to penalties for their prior offense. If a governor or president issues a pardon, that decision is final. It is not subject to review by other politicians who disagree with its application. To impose a lifelong employment ban on someone who has been pardoned is to unilaterally nullify the power of the pardon itself. It is an act of executive defiance against the justice system. It is not merely unconstitutional; it is authoritarian.

Beyond its assault on free speech, this decree obliterates due process. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee that the government cannot deprive a citizen of life, liberty, or property without fair legal proceedings. Public employment is not a privilege handed out at the whim of politicians. It is governed by rules, fairness, and legal protections. A state government cannot arbitrarily blacklist individuals from employment without providing a fair hearing, evidence, or an appeal process.

This is not a new legal debate. The Supreme Court has ruled in cases such as Board of Regents v. Roth (1972) that public employment decisions must not be arbitrary or politically motivated. By contrast, Pritzker’s ban is wholly political—it does not target individuals based on competence, legal record, or qualifications. It is a sweeping act of retribution. Even convicted felons are entitled to case-by-case review when applying for state jobs. Yet under this policy, an individual arrested but pardoned for a misdemeanor trespassing charge on January 6 would be permanently banned without any recourse.

Beyond these constitutional violations, the decree also violates the explicit prohibition on bills of attainder in Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution. A bill of attainder is a legislative act that punishes a person or group without a judicial trial. The Founders banned this practice because it was a favorite tool of tyranny—used by monarchs and parliaments to eliminate political enemies. The Supreme Court struck down a nearly identical form of blacklisting in United States v. Brown (1965), when it ruled that Congress could not bar former Communist Party members from certain positions. The Court ruled that the government cannot impose career restrictions based on past political affiliations or beliefs. Pritzker’s decree mirrors the very abuses the Founders sought to prevent.

Even setting aside its constitutional infirmities, this policy is impossible to enforce fairly. How will the state determine who is banned? What standard of proof will be used? Will peaceful rallygoers be punished alongside violent rioters? Will those who were merely in Washington, D.C., that day be blacklisted? The decree’s ambiguity ensures selective enforcement, meaning it will inevitably be weaponized against political opponents while others are granted exemptions.

At its core, this policy is a test of principle. The Constitution does not protect only popular speech, approved protests, or government-favored groups. It protects all citizens, even those the ruling class despises. If a Republican governor banned Black Lives Matter protesters from state jobs, there would be immediate legal challenges—and rightly so. The principle does not change simply because the protest in question involved January 6.

Governor Pritzker’s decree is not an isolated act. It is part of a broader, emerging trend where government power is wielded not to administer justice but to enforce ideological conformity. It is a warning shot that dissent will be punished, that the justice system is secondary to political loyalty tests, and that even a pardon does not restore your rights if the ruling class decides otherwise.

This is not the rule of law. This is rule by law—the selective application of legal mechanisms to silence and punish enemies. The Constitution was designed precisely to prevent such abuses. The courts should strike down this decree swiftly, unequivocally, and with the force of precedent behind them. Anything less would be a betrayal of the fundamental American principle that justice is not determined by politics, and rights are not conditional on government approval.

If you don't already please follow @amuse on 𝕏 and subscribe to the Deep Dive podcast.