Supreme Court hears arguments over obstruction law used against January 6 rioters

The Supreme Court’s decision over whether a federal obstruction law can be used to prosecute January 6, 2021, rioters could have significant ramifications for former President Donald Trump, who was charged with the same criminal offense.

Special counsel Jack Smith charged Trump with violating a federal law enacted in 2002 that prohibits people from obstructing an “official proceeding.” The charge can add up to 20 years to a prison sentence.

Trump would almost certainly use a decision against the government to fuel criticism he has directed at prosecutors as he has tried to reframe the January 6 attack as a “beautiful day.”

Trump would almost certainly use a win for Joseph Fischer, who brought the case to the high court, to try to further undermine the Justice Department. Depending on how the court rules, he might also attempt to have that charge thrown out in his own case.

The special counsel appears eager to head that argument off. In a filing last week, Smith argued the obstruction charge should stick against Trump even if Fischer wins.

“The Trump charges probably survive almost no matter what the court does in Fischer,” said Randall Eliason, a former federal prosecutor and George Washington University law professor.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday from a former Pennsylvania police officer who stormed the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, in a case that could undermine federal charges against more than 350 rioters.

Joseph Fischer told the justices that by the time he arrived at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, Congress had already recessed. His lawyers said Fischer spent less than four minutes inside the building and that he advanced fewer than 25 feet.

Prosecutors paint a different picture. They say Fischer warned his police chief by text that the day might get violent. He texted that protesters should drag Democrats “into the street and have a mob trial.” Fischer captured a video on his cell phone in which he can be heard yelling “charge!” before he ran into the Capitol, prosecutors say.

Weeks after the attack, a grand jury returned a seven-count indictment against Fischer that included charges of civil disorder; assaulting, resisting or impeding officers; and the obstruction charge. The case before the Supreme Court involves only that last charge.

The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit combined Fischer’s case with two others and ruled that the charge could be used against January 6 defendants – siding with 14 of 15 district court judges who ruled the same way. All three defendants appealed to the Supreme Court, but the justices granted only Fischer’s case. The other two will likely be summarily resolved after Fischer.

Exactly how much impact the court’s ruling may have on other January 6 cases is unclear. Most defendants who were convicted of the obstruction charge and sentenced to prison were also convicted of additional felony or misdemeanor charges, according to a CNN analysis. The average sentence in those cases was just over four years, the analysis shows – far less than the 20-year maximum the obstruction count carries.

Read more about the case here.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments this morning to consider whether part of a federal obstruction law can be used to prosecute some of the rioters involved in the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol.

How the Supreme Court defines how the obstruction law can be used related to the Capitol attack could impact hundreds of criminal cases, even the pending case against former President Donald Trump, who is also charged with obstructing an official proceeding.

The charge at issue in the Supreme Court case stems from a law Congress enacted in response to a series of corporate accounting scandals, including the 2001 Enron debacle. That law makes it a felony to “corruptly” alter, destroy or mutilate a record with the intent of making it unavailable for use in an “official proceeding,” or to “otherwise” obstruct, influence or impede such a proceeding.

The Justice Department has used the charge as the cornerstone of many of the more serious Capitol riot cases, in which defendants were outspoken about their desire to stop Congress’ certification of President Joe Biden’s Electoral College win or were instrumental in the physical breach of the Capitol.

Read more about the case and what is at stake.