The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard a case that could invalidate felony charges for more than 300 individuals connected to the Capitol riot — including Donald Trump.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared divided over whether the federal government had properly charged hundreds of alleged Jan. 6 rioters with felony obstruction, with several justices voicing concern that prosecutors’ broad interpretation of a financial crimes law could be weaponized against political protests.
The high-stakes case, brought by a former Pennsylvania police officer facing charges for his alleged conduct at the Capitol in 2021, could upend the convictions and sentences of more than 300 defendants — and could also potentially invalidate two of the four charges against former President Donald Trump brought by special counsel Jack Smith.
At issue in the case of Fischer v. United States is whether the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, enacted in the wake of the Enron scandal to prevent the destruction of evidence in financial crimes, can be used against alleged participants in the events of Jan. 6, 2021, which disrupted congressional certification of electoral votes from the 2020 presidential election.
The statute makes it a crime to «alter, destroy, mutilate or conceal a record, document or other object» in an effort to impair an investigation. But it also includes a catch-all provision for conduct that «otherwise obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding.»
Joseph Fischer’s defense attorney Jeffrey Green argued the provision should not apply to his client.
«Attempting to stop a vote count or something like that is a very different act than actually changing a document or altering a document or creating a fake new document,» Green told the court on Tuesday.
