In yet more good news for conservatives out of the Supreme Court of the United States, SCOTUS ruled on Friday, June 28, that the Department of Justice overstepped its bounds in hitting hundreds of January 6 defendants with obstruction charges over what it alleged was their obstructing the official proceedings of Congress with the events on that day.
The case before the court was brought by former police officer Joseph Fischer. He was accused of obstructing an official proceeding, the Congressional certification of now-President Joe Biden’s 2020 electoral victory. He petitioned the court to dismiss the charge and it agreed, voting 6 to 3 that the DOJ couldn’t bring that charge against him in the manner that it was. That then invalidates the hundreds of obstruction charges against J6ers.
The court did, however, add that the obstruction charge could be refiled against him or others if the DOJ prosecutors could somehow show that the protester charged with it was, in entering the Capitol, attempting to disrupt the certification vote, rather than just trespass by forcing their way into the Capitol complex. That intent, however, will likely be difficult to prove.
The important element, in whether the charges should be dropped, is intent. The court ruled that the basis of the charges the 2002 statute enacted as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, passed in the wake of the Enron fraud and collapse, was not meant to be applied so broadly as it was by the DOJ in this matter. Rather, SCOTUS ruled, it was only meant to be applicable in cases regarding tampering with physical evidence.
Such is what Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion, writing, “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.”
Commenting on the matter, Heritage Foundation Institute of Constitutional Government vice president and former federal prosecutor John Malcolm said, “The Supreme Court’s narrowed definition of this statute is a victory against government overreach when it comes to applying vague criminal statutes to defendants and situations never intended by Congress. It is more than clear that what happened on January 6th did not involve document destruction or witness tampering—as the statute indicates.”
The case is not just good news because it means that many of the obstruction charges will be dropped. It is also important because it could help former President Donald Trump, as he has been charged with crimes relating to that day.
Attorney General Merrick Garland, of course, went ballistic about the court’s ruling. In a statement, he said, “January 6 was an unprecedented attack on the cornerstone of our system of government — the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next. I am disappointed by today’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.”
He continued, “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. There are no cases in which the Department charged a January 6 defendant only with the offense at issue in Fischer. For the cases affected by today’s decision, the Department will take appropriate steps to comply with the Court’s ruling. We will continue to use all available tools to hold accountable those criminally responsible for the January 6 attack on our democracy.”
"*" indicates required fields