Supreme Court justices signal wariness of law used for Jan. 6 prosecutions

The scope of the federal obstruction law applied against the Jan. 6 mob and former President Trump drew scrutiny from the Supreme Court on Tuesday, as the Justice Department’s wide-ranging prosecution of the Capitol attack drew scrutiny from the Supreme Court on Tuesday. This suggests that judges may be wary of this. .

Former police officer Joseph Fischer, who was charged with breaking into the Capitol on January 6, 2021, is seeking legal action to eliminate obstruction of justice, one of several charges he faces. I objected.

Section 1512(c)(2) of the Act makes it a crime to “unauthorizedly” obstruct, obstruct, or impede an official inquiry or investigation by Congress, punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

Jeffrey Green, who represented Fisher, argued Tuesday that the law was created to more strictly address conduct that affects the “integrity or availability of evidence.” — It does not affect any evidence and does not interfere with formal proceedings.

However, the Department of Justice (DOJ) argues that Fisher’s interpretation imposes “textual limitations” on the types of conduct that can be prosecuted under the charge, and that Congress made the law a “text limit” for unlawful conduct. suggested that it was intended to serve as a “classic catch-all”. Includes destruction of records, documents, and other objects.

The crime itself is more than 20 years old, being enacted in 2002 after the Enron scandal in which energy company executives were imprisoned on fraud and other charges after Enron’s bankruptcy.

Since the Capitol riot, more than 1,300 people have been charged with involvement in the attack, including about 353 people who are accused of interfering with Congress’ official counting of electoral votes that day. Vote certification is the final step in the presidential election process and officially confirms President Biden’s victory over President Trump in 2020.

But Fisher and numerous other Jan. 6 defendants argue that the charges were unfairly applied to the mob that descended on the Capitol that day.

Conservative justices on the high court asked the Justice Department whether the charge had ever been used to prosecute acts other than the attack on the Capitol. U.S. Attorney General Elizabeth Preloger said the Justice Department is using the law in prosecutions involving acts that expose grand juries and secret law enforcement officers.

Justice Neil Gorsuch cited hypothetical situations, such as a high court heckler disrupting debate or a fire alarm going off before a vote in Congress, that would “qualify” him to be prosecuted under the law. I asked if there was one.

Preloger argued that if the Department of Justice could prove that the individuals involved in these acts did so “fraudulently” and “intentionally,” those cases would meet the requirements of the statute.

But the attorney general also focused on the Capitol attack and why the charges remain important to the prosecution.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked why Fisher’s six other charges related to January 6 were not “sufficient.” Preloger responded that Fisher’s “fundamental conduct” revolves around Congress’s certification of the 2020 presidential election and his desire to prevent it.

She said the Justice Department should be able to hold Mr. Fisher “responsible for his actions.”

The justices also dwelled on the term “otherwise,” which distinguishes the first part of Section 1512(c), which focuses on the destruction of records, from the second part, which refers to the following acts: We investigated the specific wording of the law. otherwise interfere with, influence or disrupt any official proceeding; ”

The Justice Department argued that the latter was intended to encompass any remaining conduct, but Mr. Fisher argued that the law was intended to focus on actual evidence.

“If trying to influence a Congressional committee was itself a crime, why not turn every office building in Washington into a prison?” Fischer’s attorney Frederick Ulrich wrote in the petition to the high court. is written in.

An unexpected ally in Mr. Biden’s assessment was Mr. Biden, who at one point as a senator referred to the subsection as “a crime for document shredding.” U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols cited Mr. Biden’s remarks in his ruling, saying his actions did not apply to the defendant’s other obstruction charge on January 6.

The same judge dismissed the charges in Mr. Fisher’s case, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the judge’s rulings in both cases.

The D.C. Circuit and more than a dozen other Washington District Court judges echoed the Justice Department’s view of the law.

Several members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers extremist groups were indicted, and several were convicted, including each group’s leaders Enrique Tarrio and Stewart Rhodes. Dozens of other defendants in less serious cases have either pleaded guilty or been convicted at trial.

But perhaps most notable is Trump himself, who is being indicted in a federal election interference case being prosecuted in Washington, D.C. Trump’s case was not addressed during arguments, but if the Supreme Court sided with the mob, those charges in the president’s case would be undermined. and mob incidents.

President Trump’s D.C. federal lawsuit will be halted indefinitely as the Supreme Court considers oral arguments scheduled for next week in the high court.

The former president is currently on trial in Manhattan for his role in a hush-money deal leading up to the 2016 election, and the judge in the case ruled Monday that Trump will not attend Supreme Court oral arguments in lieu of a criminal trial. He said he couldn’t do it.