Supreme Court Reviewing Obstruction Law's Implications on January 6 Rioters and Potential Impact on Trump's Case

The Supreme Court announced on Wednesday that it will review the use of a federal obstruction law in prosecuting rioters involved in the January 6, 2021, US Capitol attack. This could have a significant impact on numerous criminal cases, including the pending case against former President Donald Trump, who is facing charges of obstructing an official proceeding.

President Donald Trump converses with Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court while Associate Justice Elena Kagan observes, prior to the commencement of the State of the Union address in the House chamber on February 4, 2020 in Washington, DC.

Leah Millis/Pool/Getty Images

US v. Trump will bring new political misery to the embattled Supreme Court, no matter what the justices do

The case revolves around a federal criminal statute that prohibits anyone from obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding. The Justice Department has relied on this charge in numerous Capitol riot cases, particularly those involving individuals who sought to disrupt the certification of President Joe Biden's Electoral College win or were involved in physically breaching the Capitol.

Joseph Fischer, the key figure in the case, faced numerous federal charges related to his involvement in the January 6 attack.

A federal judge has ruled to dismiss the particular charge against Fischer under the obstruction law. A federal appeals court was split on the issue earlier this year, with the majority finding that the obstruction statute's broad terms applied to individuals who forcefully entered the Capitol on January 6. The Supreme Court will make the final decision on this matter during this term.

This image, taken from a police officer's body camera video, shows Joseph W. Fischer at the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, according to the Justice Department.

The Court's intervention at this point indicates that the justices are keen on offering overall clarity on a matter that has led to some confusion in certain January 6 cases, noted Steve Vladeck, a CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law.

This Wednesday, the justices' decision marks the first instance of the high court agreeing to review the prosecution of an individual involved in the Capitol riot. This development coincides with special counsel Jack Smith requesting the court to assess Trump's immunity claims related to his involvement in trying to undermine the 2020 election.

According to federal prosecutors, video evidence reportedly depicts Fisher running towards a police line outside the Capitol and shouting, "Charge!" Fisher, an officer with the North Cornwall Township Police Department, allegedly yelled expletives as he clashed with officers on January 6th.

Fischer was reportedly seen on police body camera footage attempting to assist an officer who had fallen during the scuffle. He is said to have claimed to be a police officer during the incident.

Following the attack, Fischer allegedly sent a private message to an associate, expressing concern about needing a new job due to rumors spreading about his attendance at the rally. Additionally, he mentioned confronting his police chief, stating that he had no regrets and did not care about the consequences.

On April 21, 2023, in Washington, DC, Rev. Pat Mahoney, Peggy Nienaber of Faith and Liberty, and Mark Lee Dickson of Right to Life East Texas gathered in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. The demonstrators, organized by The Stanton Public Policy Center/Purple Sash Revolution, prayed for the Supreme Court to uphold Federal District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk's ruling that suspended the Food and Drug Administration's approval of the abortion pill mifepristone. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Supreme Court to decide whether to restrict abortion drug nationwide

Fischer jokingly told the associate that the FBI might arrest him, as per court documents. Earlier this year, the federal appeals court that handled Fischer's case, along with two other similar cases, stated that obstruction can encompass a broad spectrum of behavior when a defendant has corrupt intentions and is interfering with an official proceeding, such as the congressional certification of the 2021 presidential election on January 6.

Judge Florence Pan of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit wrote in the 2-1 majority opinion that the statute's broad interpretation, which includes all forms of obstructive acts, is clear and logical. A decision is anticipated to be made next summer.

CNNs Hannah Rabinowitz and Katelyn Polantz contributed to this report.

This story has been updated with additional details.