The Supreme Court’s latest ruling on 28 January narrowed the scope of a law under which the Department of Justice had previously charged hundreds of participants in the January 6, 2021 “Capitol Riot” with “obstruction of justice”. This means that these rioters may be able to get away with a “felony”.
Supreme court narrows obstruction law in Jan. 6 cases, impacting DOJ charges
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a former police officer named Joseph Fischer, one of hundreds of defendants charged with felony obstruction for their involvement in the January 6, 2021 Capitol Riot. The rioters stormed the Capitol in an effort to prevent both houses of Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election, resulting in the world-shaking case of the “1.6 Capitol Riot.”
The Supreme Court concluded on 28 December that the law under which the DOJ prosecuted Fisher was enacted in 2002 as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in the wake of the Enron accounting scandal; and that the law applies only to the limited circumstances involving tampering with the form of evidence, and not to the broader circumstances claimed by prosecutors. The Supreme Court therefore remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings to determine whether the Department of Justice could still prosecute Fisher under the new interpretation of the law.
Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a statement on the 28th saying he was disappointed in the ruling because of the impact it will have on the Justice Department’s prosecutions surrounding the Jan. 6 incident – though he emphasized that the ruling won’t affect most of the cases.
Garland said the ruling “limits an important federal statute” that the Justice Department has been trying to use to ensure appropriate consequences for those most responsible for the riot.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that the government’s view of the law’s scope “runs counter to the most reasonable understanding” of the relevant statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1512.
He added that the Justice Department’s interpretation would “criminalize a great deal of banal behavior, exposing activists and lobbyists alike to decades in prison.”
Roberts also wrote that to prove the defendant violated the law, prosecutors must now show that the defendant “compromised the availability or integrity of records, documents, objects, or …… other items used in official proceedings.”
Cross-ideological supreme court decision alters legal landscape for Jan. 6 defendants
It was a “cross-ideological” 6-3 decision. Roberts, along with four other conservative judges and one liberal judge, Ketanji Brown Jackson, made up the majority of the ruling. Two other liberal justices and conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissented from the ruling.
Jackson authored a separate opinion stating that Fisher’s conduct could still be covered by a narrow interpretation of the law.
She said it was “clear that certain records, documents or items, including those related to the electoral votes themselves, were used” in the Jan. 6 certification of the election results by a joint session of Congress.
In her dissent, Barrett wrote that because no one questioned that the joint House-Senate conference was a formal process, the question of whether Fisher could be prosecuted “appears to be open.” She added that the majority “simply cannot believe that Congress meant what it said when it wrote a broad statute designed to cover a large number of different behaviors.” Barrett argued that in ruling against prosecutors, the Supreme Court “failed to honor the prerogatives of the political branches.”
The case is getting a lot of attention because it also involves a charge that former President Donald Trump is facing in one of the four criminal cases he is facing, the election interference case. In the election interference case, Trump faces four charges, including one count of obstruction of official proceedings and another of conspiracy to obstruct official proceedings. However, the ruling may not affect Trump’s case. Prosecutors have also said that even if Fisher wins, Trump’s behavior will still be covered by the statute’s narrow interpretation.
In a separate, related case, the Supreme Court is considering Trump’s claim of presidential immunity in the election interference case, which will also affect whether all charges remain pending trial.
Fisher himself faces seven felony charges, only one of which is at the center of the Supreme Court case. That said, even if the obstruction charge is ultimately dismissed, the other charges, including assaulting a police officer and entering a restricted building, will still stand.
Of the more than 1,400 indictments surrounding the Jan. 6 incident, 247 cases could be affected by the Fisher decision, although in only 52 of those cases was the related “obstruction” offense the only felony. Only 27 defendants are still serving sentences in the relevant cases.