WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Friday in favor of a former police officer seeking obstruction charges for participating in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.
The justices, in a 6-3 vote, awarded victory on non-ideological grounds to suspect Joseph Fischer, who is among hundreds of January 6 suspects including the former president Donald Trump — who have been charged with obstructing an official proceeding in an attempt to prevent Congress from certifying President Joe Biden’s election victory.
The court concluded that the law, passed in 2002 as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act following the Enron accounting scandal, was intended to apply only to narrower circumstances involving evidence tampering, not to the much broader range of situations plaintiffs argued were covered by the law.
The provision is aimed at anyone who “obstructs, influences or prevents an official proceeding, or attempts to do so”, but the court found that its scope is limited by a preceding sentence in the law that refers to altering or destroying documents.
The court sent the case back to lower courts for further proceedings on whether the Justice Department could still prosecute Fischer under the new interpretation of the law.
Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement that he was disappointed by the decision because of the impact it would have on the Justice Department’s Jan. 6 cases, though he stressed that it would not affect the majority of them.
The ruling “limits an important federal law that the department sought to use to ensure that those most responsible for the attack face appropriate consequences,” he added.
But Trump celebrated the decision with joy, saying the Supreme Court “did the right thing” in Fischer’s case.
“They have been waiting for this decision for a long time. They waited a long time, and that was a great answer. That was great for people who have been treated so terribly,” Trump told his supporters on Friday. at a rally in Chesapeake, Virginia.
On Jan. 6, 2021, prosecutors said, Fischer joined the mob that stormed the Capitol from the east side. “Charge!” he shouted over and over before pressing forward towards a police line, shouting “Motherf—–s!” shouted, the government said.
He and other rioters then fell to the ground. After other rioters lifted him up, according to video released as evidence in other lawsuits from Jan. 6, he tried to appeal to officers protecting the Capitol, telling them he, too, was a cop.
Fischer previously served as a police officer in North Cornwall Township, Pennsylvania. (Another man named Joseph Fisher, who was also a police officer, was recently sentenced to 20 months in prison on January 6 for his own role.)
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that the government’s view of the law’s scope defies “the most plausible understanding” of the statute at issue, 18 U.S. Code 1512. This provision carries a prison sentence of up to 20 years.
The Justice Department’s interpretation would “criminalize a host of everyday acts, sending activists and lobbyists to prison for decades,” he added.
To prove a violation, prosecutors must now show that the defendant “impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of any data, documents, objects or … other things used in the proceeding,” Roberts wrote.
He was joined by four other conservatives and one liberal — Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson — in the majority. The other two liberal justices were joined by conservative Amy Coney Barrett in dissent.
Jackson wrote a separate opinion saying Fischer’s conduct could still fall under the narrower interpretation of the law.
The January 6 joint session of Congress to certify the election results “clearly made use of certain documents, records or objects – including, among other things, those relating to the electoral votes themselves,” she added.
Barrett wrote that no one disputes that the joint session was an official proceeding and that the question of whether Fischer can be prosecuted appears “open and shut.”
The majority, she added, “simply cannot believe that Congress meant what it said” when writing a broad statute intended to cover many different behaviors. She wrote that the court “failed to respect the prerogatives of the political branches” in ruling against prosecutors.
The ruling may not affect Trump’s case. Prosecutors said that even if Fischer wins, Trump’s conduct would still fall under a narrower interpretation of the statute.
Fischer faces seven criminal charges, only one of which was at the center of the Supreme Court case. Even if the nuisance claim is ultimately dismissed,, the other charges, including assaulting a police officer and entering a restricted building, remain in place.
The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has in the past been skeptical of prosecutors who argue for broad application of sentencing provisions.
In his election interference case, Trump faces four charges, including obstructing an official proceeding and conspiracy to commit obstruction.
In a separate case, the Supreme Court is considering Trump’s claim of presidential immunity in the election interference case, which will also affect whether all charges pending trial will still stand.
Although there are 247 cases out of the more than 1,400 cases from January 6 that may be affected by the Fischer ruling, there are only 52 cases in which this is the only crime, and only 27 of those suspects are still serving a sentence. Most recently, defendant Benjamin Martin was convicted on January 6 of obstructing an official proceeding, but was also convicted of civil disorder and misdemeanor charges.
Recently, judges have taken the upcoming Fischer decision into account in their sentencing decisions. If a defendant had been convicted of a different crime, such as assaulting a police officer, they have gone on record saying that they would have reached the same decision regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
