Washington, DC – Supreme Court justices voiced concerns on Tuesday regarding the Justice Department’s utilization of an obstruction statute in prosecuting individuals involved in the January 6th Capitol attack. This case holds implications for the election interference charges against former President Donald Trump.
During the hearing, the justices reviewed an appeal brought by former police officer Joseph Fischer, challenging a charge of obstructing an official proceeding. The specific proceeding in question was the certification of Joe Biden’s election victory by Congress, which was disrupted by a mob of Trump supporters. The law being scrutinized criminalizes attempts to obstruct, influence, or impede any official proceeding, carrying a potential prison sentence of up to 20 years.
With a conservative majority of 6-3, the court has a history of skepticism towards broad applications of criminal provisions by prosecutors. Some justices raised concerns during the arguments, questioning whether the statute could be used to prosecute peaceful protesters, such as those who have disrupted Supreme Court proceedings in the past.
Trump is also facing charges under the same law, as well as conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, in a separate case from the one currently ongoing in New York. Fischer and Trump argue that the obstruction law does not apply to their alleged conduct, and therefore, the charges should be dismissed.
Fischer, who faces multiple charges related to the Capitol riot, including assaulting a police officer and entering a restricted building, believes the Justice Department’s use of the obstruction statute in his case is unnecessary. Justices Kavanaugh and Thomas both expressed doubts about the need for Fischer to be charged under this specific statute, given the other charges he is already facing.
The provision at the center of the debate was enacted in 2002 as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, following the Enron accounting scandal. Fischer’s lawyers argue that the law should only apply to cases involving tampering with physical evidence, aligning with the statute’s intended purpose.
A ruling in Fischer’s favor could potentially impact Trump’s case, although prosecutors have indicated that even if Fischer prevails, Trump’s actions would still fall within a more restricted interpretation of the statute. The decision of the Supreme Court in this matter could have far-reaching implications for future cases involving similar charges.