In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jan. 6 defendant and former Pennsylvania police officer Joseph Fischer, significantly affecting the Justice Department’s approach to prosecuting those involved in the 2021 Capitol riot.
The 6–3 decision narrows the scope of an obstruction charge that the DOJ has brought against more than 350 riot defendants for their conduct on Jan. 6.
The case revolved around whether the federal statute Section 1512(c)(2) was appropriately applied to defendants, including Fischer and former President Donald Trump, who faced charges of corruptly obstructing an official proceeding.
The decision was mixed along mostly ideological lines, with Biden-appointed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joining the conservative majority and Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining the liberal bloc.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion, said the law would have “swallowed” up its surrounding provisions if it was interpreted too broadly. The first half of the 1512(c) provision prohibits interfering with an official proceeding, such as the certification of an election, by physically destroying or manipulating records, or attempting to do so. The second half, which is what Fischer was charged with, adds that it is unlawful to “otherwise” obstruct an official proceeding.
Roberts determined that the “most sensible inference is that the scope of (c)(2) is defined by reference to (c)(1).”
“Improbable consequences can result from untethering an ‘otherwise’ provision from the rest of a criminal statute,” the chief justice wrote.
Barrett, in her dissent, described the law as a “very broad provision,” noting that “admittedly, events like January 6th were not its target. (Who could blame Congress for that failure of imagination?).”
“But statutes often go further than the problem that inspired them, and under the rules of statutory interpretation, we stick to the text anyway,” Barrett wrote.
The court’s decision ruled against the Biden administration’s interpretation of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act’s provision. This provision, initially aimed at addressing corporate fraud, was deemed by the court to be too broad when applied to Fischer’s actions during the Capitol riot. The majority of justices concluded that the law should not be used as a broad tool for prosecuting a wide range of behaviors unrelated to its original intent.
Fischer’s legal strategy focused on the phrase “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding,” which is found in the statute. His attorney, Jeffrey Green, argued that the law’s primary intent was to address evidence tampering, not to prosecute actions such as Fischer’s. The court’s majority agreed, with Justice Samuel Alito being a major voice of skepticism during oral arguments about the government’s broad reading of the statute.
The decision is a major setback for the Biden administration, which has heavily relied on the obstruction statute. Matthew Graves, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, whose office is managing prosecutions of the riot, has brought the charge against 355 defendants, and about 130 have already been sentenced for it, according to DOJ data.
The ruling raises questions about the future of some of these cases and the potential for appeals and overturned convictions.
Fischer, who had been facing up to 20 years in prison, will have his obstruction charge reexamined by a lower court, while his other charges will remain intact.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The ruling also has implications for Trump, who faces similar charges in a separate case related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The Supreme Court’s decision could influence the legal strategy of both parties in the case.
Prosecutors are expected to continue to argue, as they have in court filings, that Trump’s obstruction charge includes physically tampering with records to impede an official proceeding, which could pass the test the high court’s majority laid out Friday. Meanwhile, some legal experts have said that narrowing the statute could present an opportunity for Trump to find a “wrinkle” in his charges.
