The Supreme Court’s ruling on an obstruction of justice case for a Capitol riot defendant could have major implication on Trump’s unrelated election interference case
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority expressed concern Tuesday over the federal government’s use of an obstruction law to prosecute a Jan. 6 Capitol riot defendant, which could have major implications for President Trump’s separate election interference case.
Joseph Fischer, a onetime police patrolman, is one of about 350 people charged by the Justice Department with «obstruction of an official proceeding» in connection with the disruption of Congress’ certification of then-former Vice President Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential election victory over Trump.
Trump is also facing that same obstruction count.
At issue is whether a federal law passed two decades ago to address corporate fraud and document destruction can be properly applied to those allegedly engaged in «assaultive conduct» like participating in a riot.
Several on the bench expressed concern the obstruction statute sweeps too broadly into areas like peaceful but disruptive conduct.
«Would a sit-in that disrupts a trial, or access to a federal courthouse, qualify? Would a heckler in today’s audience [inside the Supreme Court] qualify, or at the State of the Union address? Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify?» asked Justice Neil Gorsuch. He may have been referring to Rep. Jamaal Bowman, D–N.Y., charged with triggering a fire alarm in a House office building in a non-emergency.
But others on the court appeared to agree with the government’s view that Congress intended to allow a «classic catchall» to include other obstructive behavior involving official proceedings.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the provision was designed to «cover every base,» including the Capitol riots.
«We’ve never had a situation before,» she said, «with people attempting to stop a proceeding violently.»
A federal judge earlier dismissed the obstruction offense against three Jan. 6 criminal defendants, ruling it did not cover their conduct on the Capitol grounds. Those defendants include Fischer, Garret Miller of the Dallas area, and Edward Jacob Lang of New York’s Hudson Valley.
The high court accepted Fischer’s appeal for final review.
U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a 2019 Trump bench appointee, determined prosecutors stretched the law beyond its scope to inappropriately apply it in these cases, ruling a defendant must have taken «some action with respect to a document, record or other object» to obstruct an official proceeding under the law.
