Supreme Court narrows obstruction charge used in Jan. 6 riot prosecutions

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday sided with a former police officer charged with obstruction for joining the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, finding that prosecutors interpreted a law used to prosecute him and hundreds of other accused rioters too broadly.

In a 6-3 decision, the nation’s highest court found that the Justice Department overstepped when it filed the obstruction charges related to the riot. The incident forced lawmakers to evacuate the Capitol as they were gathered to certify President Joe Biden’s election win over former President Donald Trump, delaying proceedings.

The charge carries a maximum sentence of 20 years upon conviction.

“Nothing in the text or statutory history suggests that (the law) is designed to impose up to 20 years’ imprisonment on essentially all defendants who commit obstruction of justice in any way and who might be subject to lesser penalties under more specific obstruction statutes,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the court’s majority opinion.

“If Congress had wanted to authorize such penalties for any conduct that delays or influences a proceeding in any way, it would have said so.”

Instead, the court found that the law in question — the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act — applies only when a defendant “impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so.”

Attorney General Merrick Garland said Friday that he was disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision, which “limits an important federal statute that the Department has sought to use to ensure that those most responsible for that attack face appropriate consequences.”

“The vast majority of the more than 1,400 defendants charged for their illegal actions on January 6 will not be affected by this decision,” he said.

“There are no cases in which the Department charged a January 6 defendant only with the offense at issue in (the case that went before the Supreme Court). For the cases affected by today’s decision, the Department will take appropriate steps to comply with the Court’s ruling.”

The case stemmed from the prosecution of Joseph Fischer, a former police officer from Pennsylvania who went into the Capitol after attending the “Stop the Steal” rally on Jan. 6, according to The Washington Post. The Supreme Court’s decision Friday kicks the case back to a lower court to determine whether Fischer can be charged with obstruction, The Associated Press reported.

Fischer also faces other charges related to the riot, including assaulting a federal officer, entering and remaining in a restricted building and disorderly conduct in a Capitol building.

Among those charged with obstruction in connection to the Jan. 6 riot are Trump, whose case may not be impacted by the Supreme Court’s decision, according to CNN.

“Today’s ruling will have consequences for many of the January 6 prosecutions, but probably not for the charges against former President Trump,” said Steve Vladeck, a CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law.

“Unlike the defendant in the case before the Court, the charges against Trump relate specifically to trying to alter the evidence — the electoral votes — that Congress was considering in the January 6 Joint Session. So whereas at least some defendants will likely get re-sentencing (or even new trials), Trump’s case can go forward — assuming the Court holds on Monday that he isn’t entirely immune.”

The Supreme Court is expected to release its last decisions of its term — including one on whether Trump is immune from criminal prosecution in relation to the riot — on Monday.

© 2024 Cox Media Group