Supreme Court rules in favor of Jan. 6 rioters in obstruction case
![Supreme Court rules in favor of Jan. 6 rioters in obstruction case](https://thehill.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/06/jan6capitol_060524ap.jpg?w=900)
The Supreme Court ruled Friday that an obstruction law used to charge scores of Jan. 6 rioters and former President Trump was improperly applied, spelling trouble for the Justice Department’s far-reaching prosecution of the Capitol attack.
The justices sided 6-3, not along ideological lines, for Joseph Fischer, a former police officer accused of storming the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, who challenged one of several counts he faces: obstruction of an official proceeding.
The law, Section 1512(c)(2), makes it a crime to “corruptly” obstruct, impede or interfere with official inquiries and investigations by Congress and carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.
It’s been used to prosecute rioters who interrupted Congress’s certification of the 2020 presidential election results, but Fischer — and scores of other rioters — claim the Justice Department retooled a charge that once criminalized document shredding to encompass the conduct of those who stormed the Capitol that day.
"It would be peculiar to conclude that in closing the Enron gap, Congress actually hid away in the second part of the third subsection of Section 1512 a catchall provision that reaches far beyond the document shredding and similar scenarios that prompted the legislation in the first place,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.
“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),” he continued.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the high court’s conservative majority, while conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined liberals Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan in the dissent.
Barrett wrote that her fellow justices "failed to respect the prerogatives of the political branches" in their decision and questioned how Fischer’s case did not fit squarely into the parameters of the charge. She accused the court of completing “textual backflips” to find “some way – any way” – to narrow the subsection’s reach.
“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?” Barrett wrote. “Because it simply cannot believe that Congress meant what it said.”
The justices expressed skepticism of the Justice Department’s use of the charge during arguments in April, though U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar insisted that the law had been used to prosecute different kinds of unlawful conduct, not just the actions of rioters on Jan. 6.
Prelogar contended that Congress meant for the law — enacted in 2002 after the Enron accounting scandal, where top executives at the energy company were imprisoned for fraud — to serve as a “classic catchall” for unlawful acts that did not include the destruction of records, documents or other objects.
The Supreme Court’s decision could have profound implications on the Justice Department’s years-long prosecution of the Capitol attack.
More than 350 rioters were charged with obstructing an official proceeding after mobbing the Capitol on the day Congress was set to certify now-President Biden’s win against Trump. Several members of the extremist Proud Boys and Oath Keepers groups were convicted of the charge, including the leaders of each group, Enrique Tarrio and Stewart Rhodes.
Though most also faced other felony counts, 50 rioters were sentenced with the obstruction law as their only felony, according to Prelogar.
Jackson signaled in a separate opinion that she believed it is possible for Fischer and the other defendants to still be prosecuted under the charge.
"That issue remains available for the lower courts to determine on remand," Jackson wrote.
Trump himself also faces the charge in his federal election interference case being prosecuted in Washington, D.C. That case is indefinitely paused as the Supreme Court weighs Trump’s presidential immunity challenge, but the justices’ decision to gut the obstruction law will inevitably undermine that charge.
The former president was recently convicted on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in Manhattan, as well. It’s unclear how the Supreme Court’s imminent decision on immunity will impact that case, or the other two cases against him.
Updated 11:17 a.m.
Date: |
Filter
-
CBS News - Top stories
Jan. 6 victims frustrated over Supreme Court ruling on Trump immunity
Many of the victims and the families of those who were attacked in the Jan. 6, 2021, siege of the Capitol are sharing their frustration and anger with the Supreme Court.Donald Trump -
The Guardian - World
The supreme court’s presidential immunity ruling mocks the rule of law | Corey Brettschneider
Citizens must make this presidential election about rescuing our democracy from authoritarianism. The US supreme court found this week that former presidents have presumptive immunity from prosecution for “official acts”. This ruling doesn’t just ... -
The New York Times - World
Why the Supreme Court Immunity Ruling Worries U.S. Allies
Legal experts say the U.S. Supreme Court ruling pushes past most of the norms in effect among American allies, adding more concern about the reliability of U.S. power. -
MarketWatch - Business
‘None of these will survive’: The Supreme Court’s immunity decision may kill all the criminal cases against Trump
The opinion could hamstring all four criminal cases Trump has faced, legal experts say, leaving prosecutors in several — if not all of them — unable to proceed.Donald Trump -
The Wall Street Journal - World
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts Takes Back Control
In the term just ended, Roberts moved the law to match his priorities—and didn’t worry about getting liberal justices on board. -
The Hill - Politics
Social media court case shows we must rein in bureaucrats to protect free speech
The lesson of Murthy v. Missouri and the Supreme Court’s decision is censorship is the symptom. The root cause is government overreach. -
ABC News - Sports
Banned NBA player Jontay Porter will be charged in betting case, court papers indicate
Court papers indicate that former Toronto Raptors player Jontay Porter will be charged with a federal felony connected to the sports betting scandal that spurred the NBA to ban him for lifeNBA -
ABC News - Sports
Now-banned NBA player Jontay Porter will be charged in betting case, court papers indicate
Now-banned NBA player Jontay Porter will be charged in betting case, court papers indicateNBA -
NBC News - Politics
Conservative legal scholars say the Supreme Court's Trump immunity decision isn't conservative
The Supreme Court's decision to grant former President Donald Trump absolute immunity for some of his conduct in seeking to overturn the 2020 election has attracted a chorus of criticism from those who saw it as another sign of conservative ...Donald Trump -
CBS News - Top stories
Trump's sentencing delayed in New York conviction following Supreme Court immunity decision
Former President Donald Trump's sentencing for his New York criminal conviction has been delayed after the Supreme Court earlier this week ruled presidents have immunity for official acts while in office. CBS News' Robert Costa explains the ...New York
More from The Hill
-
The Hill - Politics
Federal judge issues narrow pause on FTC noncompete ban
A federal judge on Wednesday granted a preliminary injunction on a nationwide ban on noncompete agreements issued this spring, calling into question its future in the face of opposition by prominent business groups. The Dallas-based tax firm Ryan ... -
The Hill - Politics
Gas export projects in limbo
Welcome to The Hill's Energy & Environment newsletter {beacon} Energy & Environment Energy & Environment The Big Story Gas export projects in limbo despite court ruling New gas export projects will likely remain in limbo for many months despite ... -
The Hill - Politics
Clyburn expects ‘mini primary’ for Democrats if Biden withdraws
Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) said he would support the idea of a “mini primary” for the Democratic Party to choose a new candidate if President Biden decides to suspend his campaign amid growing concern from voters. Clyburn joined CNN’s Erica Hill on ...Joe Biden -
The Hill - Politics
Judge blocks Biden administration's new transgender health protections
A federal judge on Wednesday temporarily blocked enforcement of a new Biden administration rule bolstering health care protections for LGBTQ people, handing a preliminary legal victory to more than a dozen Republican-led states that challenged it ...Joe Biden -
The Hill - Politics
Biden in fundraising pitch: 'No one is pushing me out'
President Biden said nobody “is pushing” him “out” in a fundraising email sent Wednesday as his campaign faces headwinds following a bad performance versus former President Trump in a debate last week. “I'm the Democratic Party’s nominee,” the ...Joe Biden