Earlier this year, in Fischer v. United States, the Supreme Court strengthened a federal obstruction law used against Jan. 6 suspects, overturning a ruling by the federal appeals court in Washington. That same appeals court just upheld the Jan. 6 federal trespass conviction and issued a possible call for the justices to curb that law as well.
Tuesday’s decision came in the case of “Cowboys for Trump” leader Couy Griffin, who was convicted in 2022 under the trespass law that prohibits people from knowingly entering or remaining in “any restricted building or grounds” without lawful authority . Such an area is defined under the law as “any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area” where a protected Secret Service individual “is or may be temporarily visiting.”
Griffin, who was a New Mexico county commissioner-elect in January 2021, argued that people can only be convicted under that law if they know the basis for restricting the area is to protect a Secret Service protege.
But a divided three-judge panel ruled Tuesday that “knowingly violating the restricted area is sufficient even without knowing the basis of the restriction — here, Vice President Pence’s presence in the Capitol on January 6 — which only but confirms that such violations are prohibited. within the legislative branch of Congress.”
The two justices in the majority, Barack Obama appointee Cornelia Pillard and Bill Clinton appointee Judith Rogers, noted that a different reading would “compromise the Secret Service’s ability to protect its charges.” They concluded that “[n]neither the text nor the context of the statute supports this reading.”
Donald Trump appointee Gregory Katsas disagreed, arguing that the law places a greater burden on the government than the majority thinks. He said prosecutors would not only have to prove that Griffin knew the Capitol grounds were “cordoned, cordoned off or otherwise restricted” but also prove that he knew Pence was present “when he entered or remained within such restricted grounds.” .
Ultimately, Katsas’ opinion could be the deciding factor – or at least help Griffin take his case to court. In the Fischer case that narrowed the obstruction charge on Jan. 6, Katsas disagreed with the majority panel ruling that the Supreme Court overturned in June.
And in Griffin’s case, Katsas noted that federal prosecutors had secured more than 470 convictions under the law and that in all cases, “criminal liability may depend on whether the suspect had to know that Vice President Pence was present at the moment of the violation. .” Katsas added that Washington judges are “deeply divided on that issue; six answered yes, while ten answered no.”
Both the broad impact of an issue and the divisions surrounding it can lead the Supreme Court to intervene.
The justices declined to hear a separate appeal from Griffin in March. That appeal related to his exclusion from office after January 6. He was barred from holding office in the state, unlike federal office in the case of Trump, who the Supreme Court allowed to run for president again despite the insurrection. But Griffin could have a better outcome if he asks the judges to review his misdemeanor conviction.
Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal newsletter for expert analysis of the week’s top legal stories, including Supreme Court updates and developments in Donald Trump’s lawsuits.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
