Washington, D.C. – Supreme Court justices expressed concerns on Tuesday regarding the Justice Department’s utilization of an obstruction statute to prosecute individuals involved in the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol. The outcome of this case could potentially impact the prosecution of former President Donald Trump for election interference.
During the hearing, the justices considered an appeal brought by Joseph Fischer, a former police officer accused of obstructing an official proceeding, specifically the certification of Joe Biden’s election victory by Congress, which was disrupted by a mob of Trump supporters. The statute in question criminalizes attempts to obstruct, influence, or impede any official proceeding and carries a maximum prison sentence of 20 years.
With a conservative majority, the Court has previously shown skepticism towards broad applications of criminal provisions by prosecutors. Some justices raised concerns during the arguments, questioning whether the statute could potentially be used to prosecute peaceful protesters or individuals who disrupt proceedings like those at the Supreme Court.
Justice Samuel Alito engaged in a discussion with Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, comparing different scenarios to understand the extent of the statute’s interpretation. Meanwhile, Trump also faces charges under the same law, along with conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, in a separate case related to election interference initiatives.
Fischer contests that the obstruction law does not apply to his actions, challenging the charges brought against him. The Court weighed in on why the Justice Department opted to charge Fischer using the obstruction statute when he already faced six other criminal charges.
Prelogar emphasized the careful consideration taken by prosecutors in charging individuals under the obstruction statute. While hundreds of defendants have been charged in relation to the January 6th events, not all face obstruction charges, highlighting the specificity in applying the law.
The provision under scrutiny was enacted in 2002 post-Enron scandal, and now the Court’s decision in Fischer’s case could have implications for Trump’s pending legal battles. Even if Fischer’s challenge succeeds, prosecutors maintain that Trump’s conduct would still fall within a narrower interpretation of the statute. The ruling could potentially shape the future application of the obstruction law in cases of public unrest and official proceedings.