Supreme Court to Consider Obstruction Charges for January 6 Rioters

The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on Tuesday from a former Pennsylvania police officer who participated in the storming of the US Capitol on January 6, 2021. This case has the potential to weaken federal charges against over 350 rioters.

The court's ruling may also impact former President Donald Trump, who is facing the same criminal charges.

Special counsel Jack Smith has accused Trump of breaking a federal law passed in 2002 that forbids individuals from obstructing an “official proceeding.” This charge was also brought against numerous rioters, including the “QAnon Shaman” who was seen in a horned headdress on the Senate chamber’s dais, and the leader of the Oath Keepers who had advocated for a “bloody civil war” leading up to the riot.

If convicted, this charge could potentially result in an additional 20 years being added to a prison sentence.

The Supreme Court is now reviewing whether the prosecutors' understanding of the law can be applied to the rioters and if the convictions obtained so far will hold up.

If the decision goes against the government, Trump is likely to use it to further his criticism of prosecutors. He has been attempting to portray the January 6 Capitol attack as a "beautiful day."

The stakes are high not just for Trump and the January 6 defendants, but also for the Justice Department. According to Claire Finkelstein, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, any improper charging by the Justice Department in these cases could be politically damaging. It is crucial for our justice system to be unified and uphold the rule of law.

Trump will have his case heard by the Supreme Court in Fischer v. US. This will happen on the second day of his trial in New York for state charges related to falsifying business records. These charges are linked to hiding payments made to adult film star Stormy Daniels as hush money. Trump denies the charges and claims they are politically motivated.

The Supreme Court case involves a charge that relates to a law passed by Congress in response to corporate accounting scandals, including the Enron scandal in 2001. This law makes it a felony to tamper with records with the intent of preventing their use in an official proceeding, or to obstruct, influence, or impede such a proceeding.

Prosecutors argue that the charge should be applicable to the cases related to the events of January 6. They believe that the act of obstructing an official proceeding should include the attack that disrupted the counting of ballots by Congress to certify President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election.

Critics argue that the law was meant to stop evidence tampering before a trial or investigation.

Even though Trump is not directly involved in the case, this appeal has brought him to the Supreme Court's attention for the third time this election year. In March, the justices decided that the former president could be on the ballot in Colorado despite accusations of breaking the 14th Amendment's "insurrectionist ban" due to his actions on January 6.

Next week, the court will be listening to arguments regarding Trump's assertion that he should be immune from the special counsel's federal election subversion case, which includes the obstruction charge.

Prosecutors are facing a 'stinging reminder' of the challenges ahead.

Joseph Fischer, a former Pennsylvania police officer, brought the case to the Supreme Court. He told the justices that when he arrived at the Capitol on January 6, Congress had already recessed. Fischer's lawyers stated that he spent less than four minutes inside the building and that he advanced fewer than 25 feet.

Prosecutors have a different perspective. They claim that Fischer warned his police chief via text that the day could turn violent. He allegedly texted that protestors should drag Democrats "into the street and have a mob trial." Additionally, prosecutors say Fischer recorded a video on his own cell phone where he can be heard yelling "charge!" before entering the Capitol.

A grand jury indicted Fischer on seven counts after the attack, including charges of civil disorder, assaulting officers, resisting officers, and obstruction. The case before the Supreme Court focuses only on the obstruction charge.

The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit grouped Fischer's case with two others and decided that the charge could be applied to January 6 defendants. This decision aligned with 14 out of 15 district court judges who made the same ruling. While all three defendants appealed to the Supreme Court, only Fischer's case was accepted. The other two cases are still pending and are likely to be resolved shortly after Fischer's case.

The political implications could be huge.

It's uncertain how the court's decision will affect other cases related to the events of January 6. A CNN analysis revealed that most defendants found guilty of obstruction and sent to jail were also convicted of other serious charges. On average, those individuals received a sentence of a little over four years, a lot less than the maximum 20-year penalty for obstruction.

Nicholas Smith, who represented the defendants before the DC Circuit, mentioned that a Fischer win would not drastically impact the DOJ's Capitol riot cases. However, it would serve as a strong reminder that overly broad interpretations of criminal statutes will not be accepted.

If Fischer were to win, it is highly likely that Trump would use this as an opportunity to continue undermining the Justice Department. He may also try to have the charge thrown out in his own case, depending on the court's ruling.

The special counsel wants to prevent that argument from being made.

In a recent filing at the Supreme Court regarding Trump's immunity case, Smith argued that the obstruction charge should still apply to Trump even if Fischer is successful. In a footnote, Smith highlighted that Trump's charge stems from the false slate of electors he tried to submit to Congress.

"The Trump charges are likely to remain regardless of the court's decision in Fischer," stated Randall Eliason, a former federal prosecutor and law professor at George Washington University.

Progressive groups have urged Justice Clarence Thomas to step aside from cases related to January 6 due to his wife, conservative activist Ginni Thomas, admitting she was present at Trump's rally at the White House prior to the attack. Additionally, text messages obtained by a congressional committee revealed that Ginni Thomas had communicated with senior White House officials after the election to offer her support.

Thomas has largely ignored those requests.

Also central to the case: An undersized grouper

Fischer heavily relies on a 2015 Supreme Court case that dealt with a commercial fisherman. The fisherman had undersized red grouper on his boat and ordered them to be thrown overboard before authorities could confirm his violation of fishing regulations.

He was convicted of altering or destroying evidence to obstruct an investigation. The government argued that the fish qualified as a "tangible object" under the law.

But a majority of 5-4 from the Supreme Court, which included Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Samuel Alito, had a different opinion. They believed that a "tangible object" referred to items used for recording or preserving information, like a document, and not a fish.

Fischer argued to the Supreme Court that the context and history of the law in question for the January 6 prosecutions are also clear. His attorneys claim that the law was intended to be used for cases involving tampering with evidence, and not to charge individuals involved in a riot.

The government and some experts disagree with this interpretation. The law in question for the January 6 charges is written differently compared to the earlier case. The section on “obstruction” is more distinct, according to the Justice Department, indicating that Congress intended to establish a broad prohibition on disrupting congressional proceedings.

Eliason believes that the previous decision regarding the small fish may end up being advantageous for the government. In a case involving fishermen, Justice Antonin Scalia, who was known for his belief in interpreting the law based on its actual words rather than its history or other factors, was among those who disagreed.

According to Eliason, if the Trump-appointed justices are consistent, at least two out of the three should rule against Fischer's arguments. The statute in question is broad, but not ambiguous.

Editor's P/S:

The upcoming Supreme Court case involving a former police officer who participated in the January 6 Capitol riot has significant implications for the future of charges against over 350 rioters, including former President Donald Trump. The court's ruling could potentially weaken federal charges or even result in the dismissal of Trump's obstruction charge, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 additional years in prison. The stakes are high for both the Justice Department and Trump, who has been attempting to portray the attack as a "beautiful day."

The case hinges on the interpretation of a 2002 law that forbids individuals from obstructing an "official proceeding." The Justice Department argues that the law applies to the January 6 attack, which disrupted the counting of electoral votes by Congress. However, critics argue that the law was intended to stop evidence tampering before a trial or investigation. The Supreme Court's decision will have a major impact on the ongoing prosecution of January 6 rioters and could potentially set a precedent for future cases involving political violence.