Supreme Court Justices Question Obstruction Charges in January 6 Cases

The Supreme Court grapples with applying an obstruction statute to the January 6th Capitol riot, with conservative justices questioning its broad use, while liberals support the government's position. The ruling could impact sentencing and the case against Trump.

author-image
Olalekan Adigun
New Update
Supreme Court Justices Question Obstruction Charges in January 6 Cases

Supreme Court Justices Question Obstruction Charges in January 6 Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court appeared divided during oral court, arguments on Tuesday over the use of a federal obstruction statute to prosecute hundreds of participants in the January 6, 2021 riot at the Capitol. The case centers on Joseph Fischer, a former Pennsylvania police officer charged with disrupting Congress's certification of Joe Biden's 2020 presidential election victory over Donald Trump.

At issue is the interpretation of the federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2), which makes it a crime to corruptly alter, destroy, or mutilate documents and records related to an official proceeding, as well as to otherwise obstruct or impede an official court, obstruction, statute . The statute was enacted in the aftermath of the Enron financial scandal.

The court's conservative justices expressed skepticism about applying this statute broadly to the January 6th events, questioning whether it was meant to cover all kinds of obstructive conduct. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, and Samuel Alito raised concerns about the potential scope of the law, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett also had a series of skeptical questions.

In contrast, the three liberal justices appeared more receptive to the government's arguments that the statute was intended as a catchall provision to cover various forms of obstruction. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan seemed to support the Justice Department's position that the law is broad enough to include the rioters' actions on January 6th.

During the arguments, Justice Clarence Thomas questions whether the government has applied the statute selectively, implying that the obstruction charge has not been used for other violent protests in the past. This stance drew criticism from legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, who accused Thomas of minimizing the severity of the insurrection, possibly due to his wife's alleged involvement in efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

Why this matters: The outcome of the case could impact the sentencing or release of some of the 350 defendants charged under the obstruction statute for their roles in the January 6th riot. It may also have implications for the federal election subversion case against former President Donald Trump, who court, riot, obstruction, charge .

The court, obstruction ruling, expected by July, will determine the scope of the obstruction law and its application to the January 6th cases. If the justices decide the statute was used too broadly, it could undermine parts of the case against Trump and unwind the convictions and sentences of numerous riot defendants. However, the government argues that the attack on the Capitol was a unique and direct assault on a constitutional process, warranting the use of the obstruction charge.

Key Takeaways

  • Supreme Court divided over using obstruction law for Jan 6 rioters
  • Conservatives skeptical, liberals more receptive to broad application of law
  • Thomas questioned selective prosecution, drawing criticism from legal analysts
  • Ruling could impact sentencing of 350 defendants and Trump's election case
  • Government argues Capitol attack warranted use of obstruction charge