The US Supreme Court has significantly narrowed the scope of a key obstruction charge used against individuals involved in the January 6 Capitol riot, including former President Donald Trump. In a 6-3 decision that crossed ideological lines, the court ruled that to warrant the charge of obstructing an official proceeding, there must be proof that the defendants attempted to tamper with or destroy documents.
This ruling has the potential to impact more than 300 prosecutions related to the Capitol riot, as many defendants were not accused of tampering with official documents. The decision could pave the way for some of these individuals to be cleared of the obstruction charge.
Two of the four criminal charges against Trump related to the January 6 riots involve this obstruction statute. Trump’s legal team is expected to use the Supreme Court’s ruling to seek dismissal of these charges. Trump celebrated the decision, posting “BIG WIN!” on his Truth Social platform.
However, Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is prosecuting Trump, has argued that the ruling will not affect the charges against the former president. Trump still faces two other charges: conspiring to defraud the United States and conspiracy against rights.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated that the government must prove that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity of records, documents, objects, or other items used in an official proceeding. The court’s decision was based on a technical reading of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which was enacted in response to the Enron accounting scandal.
The case that brought this issue to the Supreme Court involved Joseph Fischer, a former police officer from Pennsylvania, who was charged with obstructing an official proceeding during the January 6 riot. Fischer’s lawyer argued that he did not destroy any material during the riots, as required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to warrant the charge.
The Supreme Court instructed lower courts to reevaluate Fischer’s case based on its majority opinion. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who joined the majority, emphasized that prosecutors cannot broaden the scope of the statute even in response to national emergencies. She argued that the ruling does not preclude Fischer from facing charges under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, but that this determination must be made by the lower courts.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by the other two liberal justices, dissented. Barrett argued that the certification of the Electoral College vote on January 6, 2021, was an official proceeding, and that the obstruction charge should still apply.
The Supreme Court’s ruling could affect dozens of cases brought by the Justice Department in the three years since the Capitol riot. Attorney General Merrick Garland stated that the Justice Department would take appropriate steps to comply with the court’s ruling, but noted that the vast majority of the more than 1,400 defendants charged in connection with the January 6 riot would remain unaffected.
According to the U.S. attorney’s office for Washington, D.C., of the 249 cases where defendants have been charged or convicted of the obstruction statute, there are no cases in which it is the only criminal charge they faced. The ruling will most significantly impact a narrow band of cases where the only felony for which a defendant was convicted and sentenced was the obstruction charge.
Judges in D.C.’s district court overseeing the Capitol riot cases have already begun responding to the court’s ruling. In at least one case, involving convicted rioter Guy Reffitt, the court has ordered prosecutors and defense attorneys to propose a schedule for future proceedings in light of the Supreme Court’s decision.
Despite the ruling, prosecutors may still have a limited path to continue using the obstruction charge if they can show that a defendant intended to prevent Congress from certifying the electoral results. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson left open the possibility that Fischer could still be convicted of the charge if prosecutors can prove his conduct involved the impairment of things used during the January 6 proceeding.
This interpretation could also support Special Counsel Jack Smith’s argument for applying the obstruction charge against Trump. Smith’s prosecutors have argued that even if the court sided with Fischer’s interpretation, it should not impact the charges against Trump, as his indictment alleges a tie to specific documents, such as fraudulent certificates delivered by “fake electors.”
The Supreme Court’s decision has introduced another wrinkle into the prosecution of Trump and other January 6 defendants. While the ruling may not affect Trump’s case, it has the potential to impact the charges against other defendants in the Justice Department’s extensive effort to prosecute those involved in the Capitol riot.
Source: The Associated Press, NBC News, BBC News
