Washington — The Supreme Court ruled Friday in favor of a former Pennsylvania police officer accused of obstructing an official procedure after entering the U.S. Capitol building on Jan. 6, 2021, and restricting the Justice Department’s application of a federal obstruction law targeting dozens of people entering the building where Congress had met to vote for state electors to count.
The court ruled 6-3 that to prove a violation of the obstruction law, the government must show that the defendant compromised the availability or integrity of data, documents or other items used in an official proceeding. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined five conservatives in the majority, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with the other two liberals.
The Supreme Court’s decision could impact the ongoing prosecution of nearly 250 defendants charged with obstruction for their participation in the Jan. 6 attack. It could also shake up cases that have already gone to trial, as those convicted of violating the obstruction statute or who have pleaded guilty could seek resentencing, withdraw their pleas or request a new trial. There are 52 cases in which a defendant has been convicted on charges in which obstruction was the only offense, and of those, 27 are currently in prison, the Justice Department said.
Crucially, the ruling could also impact the federal prosecution of former President Donald Trump, who faces charges stemming from an alleged scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. The obstruction charge and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding are among the four charges against Trump in the case brought by special counsel Jack Smith. Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
The former president could ask a federal district court to dismiss the two obstruction-related charges as a result of the Supreme Court decision. The justices are also considering a separate bid by Trump to dismiss the entire charge on the grounds of presidential immunity, though they have not yet made a decision.
Fischer vs. US
The law at the heart of the case was passed in the wake of the Enron accounting fraud scandal and makes it a crime to “corruptly” obstruct an official proceeding. The statute is typically used in cases involving evidence tampering, since its first provision focuses on documents. But after the Jan. 6 attack, federal prosecutors brought obstruction charges against more than 350 defendants who allegedly entered the Capitol after Congress met to certify the election results.
More than 1,400 people have been charged in connection with the Jan. 6 attack. The vast majority — 82 percent — were not charged with violating the obstruction statute, according to the Justice Department.
One of the suspects charged is Joseph Fischer, who faced seven charges, including assaulting a police officer, disorderly conduct and corruptly obstructing an official proceeding. Violators of the obstruction statute face up to 20 years in prison.
Fischer moved to dismiss the obstruction count, and a federal district judge ruled that nothing in the indictment alleged that he “took any action with respect to any document, record or other object” to obstruct congressional proceedings.
That judge, U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, was the only one of the 15 cases heard in Washington on Jan. 6 who used a narrow interpretation of the law.
However, the federal appeals court in Washington ruled against Fischer last year in a split decision. He then appealed to the Supreme Court and Fischer’s case was the first in which the justices were confronted with the aftermath of the January 6 attack.
It was also one of three cases the court heard in its current term with implications for Trump. Smith told the Supreme Court in a filing in the immunity case that regardless of the ruling in Fischer’s case, the obstruction charges against Trump still stand.
The special counsel alleges that Trump fraudulently organized false ballot lists in seven battleground states and urged state officials to send the false certificates to Congress. The creation of those documents, Smith said, “satisfies an interpretation of evidentiary loss.”
