The Supreme Court announced Wednesday that it will hear a case about the scope of a federal obstruction law that has been used to prosecute scores of defendants for their alleged activities during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol assault, including former President Donald Trump.
Challenges to charges filed on January 6 are brought before the Supreme Court. (Source: CBS News)
Landmark Obstruction Case
Since the Justice Department has accused over 300 people under the obstruction law in the January 6 cases, Fischer v. U.S. might have far-reaching implications. Most importantly, special counsel Jack Smith has charged Trump with one count of corruptly delaying and hindering Congress’ Jan. 6 Electoral College certification. The former president has denied that charge and three others in the 2020 presidential election prosecution. Trump’s trial begins in March. The Supreme Court will hear arguments next year and rule by June, which might jeopardize Trump’s charge. Three federal district court prosecutions in Washington, D.C., of Capitol assault defendants prompted Supreme Court review. Lang, Miller, and Fischer were charged with corruptly obstructing, influencing, or inhibiting an official proceeding. The clause is part of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which followed the Enron affair.
Miller’s plea to dismiss the obstruction count was granted by the U.S. district court because the joint session of Congress on Jan. 6 was a legitimate proceeding but the indictment’s conduct was illegal. By phrasing contained in the Act, the clause only applied if a defendant performed “some action concerning a document, record, or other object to corruptly obstruct, impede or influence an official proceeding.” Miller “took some action concerning a document, record, or other object to corruptly obstruct, impede, or influence Congress’s certification of the electoral vote,” the district court stated. After applying its rationale, the court dismissed Fischer and Lang’s obstruction counts, but the DC Circuit reversed. A divided three-judge panel concluded that the legislation “applies to all forms of corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding” and that the lower court erred in limiting it to document, record, and object acts.
READ ALSO: Labor Day Weekends In Politics Have Two Types
Capitol Assault Defendants Challenge Supreme Court
Miller pleaded guilty to remaining charges after federal prosecutors withdrew one allegation for communicating a threat in interstate commerce during the appellate proceedings. Miller received 38 months in jail and three years of supervised release. The three defendants challenged the D.C. Circuit’s ruling to the Supreme Court, raising the question of whether their Jan. 6 action implicates the obstruction statute. Their reasons for not being prosecuted vary. Others who were prosecuted for entering the Capitol on Jan. 6 petitioned the Supreme Court to intervene. Three other Capitol defendants’ lawyers told the justices in a filing that trial courts, prosecutors, and defense attorneys “have no clear guidance on the requirements or scope” of the obstruction rule.
They claimed that none of the three D.C. Circuit judges, Gregory Katsas, Justin Walker, and Florence Pan, agreed on what activity violates the legislation and that the broad interpretation of the law would embrace any criminal act related to an official procedure. The Biden administration urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the cases, arguing that the obstruction provision is broad enough to cover the Jan. 6 rioters’ conduct and covers conduct directed at the official proceeding, not records or evidence. “It is therefore natural to say that a defendant obstructs an official proceeding by physically blocking it from occurring — as happened here when petitioners and others violently occupied the Capitol for several hours and prevented the joint session of Congress from acting,” wrote government Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar in a filing with the high court. Since neither Miller, Fischer, nor Lang had been convicted of impeding an official action, the Biden administration advised that the Supreme Court should not get involved.
