Rioters trying to enter the Capitol building through the front doors in Washington, D.C., on January 6, 2021, clash with police (Photo by Lev Radin/Sipa USA)(Sipa via AP Images)
Claims by a convicted participant in the January 6 Capitol riot, alleging she faced unequal prosecution compared to other protestors, have been firmly rejected by federal prosecutors.
In a detailed 20-page court filing, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New Hampshire urged the dismissal of Cindy Young’s complaint. Young sought to draw parallels between her prosecution and those involved in the 2020 Black Lives Matter demonstrations, arguing she was subject to harsher treatment. Prosecutors argued that her claims are baseless and that she does not merit any legal relief.
Young had been convicted of four federal misdemeanors for her involvement in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Her sentence included four months of incarceration, followed by two months of home confinement and two years of probation. However, she received a pardon from President Donald Trump at the start of his second term.
Familiar to federal prosecutors, Young previously sought permission in December 2024 to attend Trump’s inauguration and later controversially suggested a memorial for Capitol police should also recognize the rioters.
In November 2025, Young filed a complaint alleging selective prosecution, which she amended in April. She claimed that upon surrendering on misdemeanor charges, FBI agents unlawfully collected a DNA sample without her consent or a warrant. Young argued this action exemplified the aggressive federal prosecution faced by January 6 defendants, contrasting it with the treatment of BLM protestors. The Department of Justice systematically refuted her allegations.
One by one, the Department of Justice worked to dismantle her claims.
First, FBI agents are “authorized” DNA collectors, and Young “had no right to refuse to provide a DNA sample, and thus no consent form or opportunity to decline were required.”
And as for the allegation that her “guarantee of Equal Protection” under the Fourteenth Amendment was violated, Young “is drawing comparisons between people who are not similarly situated,” the prosecutors wrote.
“[T]his claim itself recognizes that the two groups were not similarly situated because they were prosecuted by different sovereigns,” they continue. “There is a simple reason why the January 6 defendants faced ‘more aggressive federal prosecution’ than BLM protesters: the January 6 attack at the Capitol took place on federal property, in the federal District of Columbia. Federal authorities have exclusive jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, and it is governed by federal law.”
The BLM protests of 2020 were “[c]onversely” not limited to places under federal jurisdiction, and even if Young could prove unequal effects of the arrests, “she has alleged no facts to support the claim that such an impact was motivated by a discriminatory purpose,” prosecutors say.
As she “cannot meet the demanding standard to plead a selective prosecution claim,” her amended complaint should be denied, the attorney’s office concludes.
