Supreme Court Weighs Scope of Obstruction Charges in Capitol Riot Cases

The Supreme Court questions the use of obstruction charges against Capitol riot participants, with implications for Trump and the scope of the law.

author-image
Wojciech Zylm
Updated On
New Update
Supreme Court Weighs Scope of Obstruction Charges in Capitol Riot Cases

Supreme Court Weighs Scope of Obstruction Charges in Capitol Riot Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court is questioning whether federal prosecutors went too far in bringing obstruction charges against hundreds of participants in the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot. The case focuses on the anti-obstruction provision of a law enacted in 2002 in response to the Enron financial scandal, and whether it can be used against the Capitol riot defendants.

The justices heard arguments in the case of Joseph Fischer, a former Pennsylvania police officer who has been indicted for disrupting Congress's certification of Joe Biden's 2020 presidential election victory. The court also heard arguments on whether former President Donald Trump, who faces the same obstruction charge, has absolute immunity from prosecution.

The obstruction charge is one of the most widely used felony charges in the federal prosecution of the Capitol riot, with roughly 170 defendants convicted of obstructing or conspiring to obstruct the January 6 joint session of Congress. The Justice Department argues that the law is a 'classic catchall' designed to deal with the obstruction of an official proceeding, and that Fischer's actions before, during, and after January 6 demonstrated his intent to keep Congress from certifying the election results.

Why this matters: The Supreme Court's ruling could affect the prosecution of both Fischer and Trump, as well as hundreds of other Capitol riot defendants charged with obstruction. It also has implications for the scope of the obstruction law and its potential application to political protests and other disruptive events.

The justices expressed concerns about the broad application of the obstruction law, with some suggesting it could be used against even peaceful protests. Conservative justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas appeared skeptical of the Justice Department's interpretation, questioning whether the law was intended to cover political protests and First Amendment activities.

A ruling that the prosecutors overreached could have sweeping implications, potentially leading to new trials or lighter sentences for the January 6 defendants. The government argued that the law was written broadly to cover unanticipated ways an official proceeding could be obstructed, but the Justices seemed reluctant to accept this interpretation.

The outcome of the case could also impact the charges against former President Donald Trump, who is facing counts related to obstructing Congress's certification of the 2020 election. A decision curtailing the use of the obstruction statute in connection with the Capitol attack could eliminate two of the four charges against Trump.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling on the matter by the end of June 2024. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted during the arguments, the January 6 situation was unparalleled, and the court's decision will determine the meaning of the event and the scope of the obstruction law used to charge some participants.

Key Takeaways

  • Supreme Court questions use of obstruction law in Jan 6 cases
  • Justices skeptical of broad application of obstruction law
  • Ruling could affect prosecution of Capitol riot defendants
  • Implications for scope of obstruction law and political protests
  • Court's decision will determine meaning of Jan 6 and obstruction law