Barrett breaks with conservatives over Jan. 6 obstruction charge ruling
![Barrett breaks with conservatives over Jan. 6 obstruction charge ruling](https://thehill.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/02/Collage-Maker-28-Feb-2023-02.19-PM-e1693329880262.png?w=900)
In a pointed dissent, Justice Amy Coney Barrett skewered her fellow justices over their decision to narrow an obstruction charge used to prosecute scores of rioters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
The Supreme Court voted 6-3 Friday to side with Joseph Fischer, a former police officer accused of partaking in the Capitol attack who challenged the provision as being improperly applied to rioters.
Barrett, an appointee of former President Trump who himself faces a criminal charge that could be impacted by the court's opinion, noted that the high court does not dispute that the certification of the 2020 presidential election results that day qualifies as an “official proceeding,” nor that rioters — including Fischer himself, allegedly — delayed the proceeding.
“Given these premises, the case that Fischer can be tried for ‘obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding’ seems open and shut. So why does the Court hold otherwise?” the conservative justice wrote in a dissent joined by liberals Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. “Because it simply cannot believe that Congress meant what it said.”
The law, Section 1512(c)(2), makes it a crime to “corruptly” obstruct, impede or interfere with official inquiries and investigations by Congress. It carries a maximum 20 years in prison and has been used to prosecute more than 350 rioters accused of interrupting Congress’s 2020 certification of the vote.
But Fischer claimed the Justice Department retooled the charge to sweepingly prosecute those who participated in the riot, when the law — established in the wake of the Enron accounting scandal — actually intended to criminalize document shredding.
Barrett acknowledged that the Congress that enacted the law likely did not have the riot in mind when creating it. She quipped: “Who could blame Congress for that failure of imagination?”
However, she contended that statutes “often go further than the problem that inspired them,” accusing the majority of “abandoning” the rules of statutory interpretation and completing “textual backflips” to find “some way — any way —” to narrow the provision’s reach.
“Joseph Fischer allegedly participated in a riot at the Capitol that forced the delay of Congress’s joint session on January 6th,” Barrett wrote. “Blocking an official proceeding from moving forward surely qualifies as obstructing or impeding the proceeding by means other than document destruction. Fischer’s alleged conduct thus falls within (c)(2)’s scope.”
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority that it would be “peculiar” to find that, in Congress’s efforts to close Enron gap, it “hid away…a catchall provision” reaching past the document shredding that prompted the legislation.
“The better conclusion is that subsection (c)(2) was designed by Congress to capture other forms of evidence and other means of impairing its integrity or availability beyond those Congress specified in (c)(1),” Roberts wrote.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a liberal, joined the conservative majority. In a separate opinion, she signaled her belief that it is possible for Fischer and other defendants to still be prosecuted under the charge.
"That issue remains available for the lower courts to determine on remand," Jackson wrote.
The Supreme Court’s decision could have profound implications on the Justice Department’s years long prosecution of the Capitol attack.
Among those charged under the provision were several members of the extremist Proud Boys and Oath Keepers groups, including leaders Enrique Tarrio and Stewart Rhodes.
Two of Trump’s charges in his federal election subversion case — which has been on an indefinite pause as the Supreme Court weighs his presidential immunity challenge — also stem from the provision. He has pleaded not guilty.
Date: |
Filter
-
ABC News - Top stories
Supreme Court limits scope of obstruction charge against Capitol rioters, Trump
The Supreme Court on Friday limited the scope of a felony obstruction charge used against Capitol rioters and Donald Trump.Donald Trump -
NBC News - Top stories
Supreme Court rules for Jan. 6 rioter challenging obstruction charge
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a former police officer who is seeking to throw out an obstruction charge for joining the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, in a ruling that could benefit former President Donald Trump. -
NBC News - Politics
Supreme Court rules in favor of Jan. 6 rioter challenging obstruction charge
The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a January 6 rioter who was seeking to throw out an obstruction charge for joining in on the Capitol riot. NBC News' Laura Jarrett has details on the ruling and how it could potentially benefit former ... -
BBC News - Top stories
Supreme Court casts doubt on hundreds of Jan 6 cases
The court narrows the use of an obstruction charge brought against hundreds of people over the 2021 Capitol riot. -
CBS News - Top stories
What to know about the Supreme Court ruling that limits scope of Jan. 6 obstruction charges
The Supreme Court ruled Friday that prosecutors have to narrow the scope of the obstruction charges they have brought against Jan. 6 defendants and Donald Trump. Former federal prosecutor Scott Fredericksen and former deputy assistant attorney ... -
CBS News - Top stories
Changes coming in Jan. 6 cases after Supreme Court ruling on obstruction charge
Judges are now scheduling changes in multiple cases involving Capitol rioters following the Supreme Court's ruling that narrowed the scope of the obstruction law used to prosecute some Jan. 6 defendants. CBS News congressional correspondent Scott ... -
CBS News - Top stories
Supreme Court limits scope of obstruction charge used in Jan. 6 cases
The Supreme Court narrowed the Justice Department's use of a federal obstruction statute leveled against scores of people who breached the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. -
CBS News - Top stories
Supreme Court limits use of obstruction charges in Jan. 6 cases
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 Friday to limit the scope of obstruction charges that prosecutors have been using against Jan. 6 defendants, including Donald Trump. Norah O'Donnell anchored CBS News' special report on the decision. -
The New York Times - Top stories
Supreme Court Says Prosecutors Overstepped With Jan. 6 Charge
The ruling that the Justice Department misused a 2002 law in charging a pro-Trump rioter who entered the Capitol could have an impact on hundreds of other cases, including one against Donald Trump.
More from The Hill
-
The Hill - Politics
Carville says Biden should be replaced
Longtime Democratic strategist James Carville said Monday that President Biden should be replaced at the top of the 2024 ticket following his poor debate performance against former President Trump. CNN host Jake Tapper asked Carville what the ...Joe Biden -
The Hill - Politics
70 percent of voters have decided who they will back in November: Poll
More than seven in 10 voters have already decided who they will vote for in the November presidential election, according to a new poll. The Harvard CAPS/Harris poll released Monday showed 72 percent of respondents said they have already made up ... -
The Hill - Politics
Republicans tout Supreme Court immunity ruling as victory in 'weaponization' fight
Republicans are hailing the Supreme Court’s ruling that presidents have immunity from prosecution for official acts as a major victory over government “weaponization” as the decision deals a blow to special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of ...Republican Party -
The Hill - Politics
Hillary Clinton sides with Sotomayor over 'MAGA wing of the Supreme Court'
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Monday the “MAGA wing of the Supreme Court" issued the majority decision granting presidential immunity for official acts in office, as she backed Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s scathing dissent in the ... -
The Hill - Politics
Luna proposes fining Garland $10K per day instead of taking him into custody
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) is proposing a less dramatic way to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in “inherent contempt” of Congress over his refusal to turn over the audio from President Biden’s interview with special counsel Robert Hur ...