{"id":2222985,"date":"2024-04-17T07:20:02","date_gmt":"2024-04-17T11:20:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/scotus-arguments-dont-bode-well-for-doj-prosecutors-pushing-j6-obstruction-charges\/"},"modified":"2024-04-17T07:26:13","modified_gmt":"2024-04-17T11:26:13","slug":"scotus-arguments-dont-bode-well-for-doj-prosecutors-pushing-j6-obstruction-charges","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/scotus-arguments-dont-bode-well-for-doj-prosecutors-pushing-j6-obstruction-charges\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Hearing Raises Concerns for DOJ Pursuing J6 Obstruction Charges"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">22<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fscotus-arguments-dont-bode-well-for-doj-prosecutors-pushing-j6-obstruction-charges%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2222985&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>The \u200bSupreme Court deliberated on Fischer \u2062v.\u2064 United States, a pivotal case stemming from the Jan. 6, 2021, \u2064Capitol riot. The debate centered on the interpretation of the obstruction statute \u2064and its application to Jan. 6\u2063 cases. Fischer&#8217;s challenge could potentially impact various prosecutions,\u200b prompting a rigorous examination of the law&#8217;s scope \u2064by justices and legal experts. The Supreme Court examined Fischer v. United States, a critical case linked \u2062to the Jan. 6, \u20642021, Capitol riot. The focus was \u2063on \u2062interpreting the obstruction \u2063statute in\u2063 relation to\u200c the \u2063events of Jan. 6. Fischer&#8217;s\u2064 challenge may have \u2064far-reaching implications \u200don prosecutions, leading to a thorough analysis of the law&#8217;s boundaries by both justices\u200c and legal scholars.  <\/p>\n<p class=\"readmore\">\n    <button onclick=\"showReadMore()\" id=\"readmorebtn\">Read more&#8230;<\/button>\n<\/p>\n<hr id=\"line\">\n<span id=\"more\"><\/p>\n<p><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><\/p>\n<div class=\"article-content\">\n<p>The Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday morning in the case of <em>Fischer v. United States<\/em>, one of the many criminal cases arising out of the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. Like defendants in a large subset of those cases, Joseph Fischer was charged, among other offenses, with obstruction of an official proceeding under 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2). Fischer\u2019s case in the Supreme Court challenges whether the events of that day can be prosecuted using this obstruction statute.<\/p>\n<p>Most of the justices seemed dubious, or at a minimum concerned, about the Department of Justice\u2019s very broad interpretation of the statute allowing it to sweep in the kinds of conduct that Jan. 6 encompassed. If the court rules for Fischer, his case will automatically apply to all Jan. 6 cases that include a Section 1512 charge and radically change those cases, including the prosecution against former President Donald Trump in D.C. In virtually all instances, such a ruling would likely require that the Section 1512 charges be dismissed outright.<\/p>\n<div class=\"fdrlst__b89e9-paragraph-2-long d-flex justify-content-center\" style=\"margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center; \" id=\"fdrlst__b89e9-1748534818\">\n<div id=\"div-gpt-ad-1379703300879-0\" class=\"mb-30\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"fdrlst__b89e9-b13d201552c82265ab47012fbfaa8243 fdrlst__b89e9-paragraph-2\" id=\"fdrlst__b89e9-b13d201552c82265ab47012fbfaa8243\"><\/div>\n<p>There are a number of different obstruction statutes in the U.S. code, but none of the others apply to Jan. 6. And Section 1512 itself is largely aimed at other sorts of conduct. Subsection (a) prohibits killing or using physical force or threats of force against individuals to affect their testimony or evidence they might have. Subsection (b) prohibits the same sort of obstructive conduct where the person uses intimidation, corrupt persuasion, or misleading conduct toward the witness.<\/p>\n<p>Subsection (c), at issue here, was enacted after the Enron scandal and was aimed primarily at preventing people from destroying or altering their own documents to obstruct an official proceeding. Subsection (c)(1) is clearly limited to impairment of \u201crecords, documents, and objects\u201d for use in official proceedings. Subsection (c)(2) criminalizes \u201cotherwise\u201d obstructing official proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>Fischer\u2019s lawyers urged the high court to also restrict the (c)(2) subsection to situations that involve the impairment of evidence that is to be or could be presented in a formal proceeding, which they assert did not occur on Jan. 6. They argued that the conduct covered by (c)(2) must be similar to the conduct covered by (c)(1), which is clearly limited to impairment of \u201crecords, documents, and objects\u201d for use in official proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>Fischer\u2019s lawyers pointed out that ordinarily, the court interprets statutes with two subsections to mean the second section prohibits conduct that is different from, but similar in kind, to the conduct described in the first section.<\/p>\n<div class=\"fdrlst__b89e9-6329960d21ecbe88f2959bbd626b7f78 fdrlst__b89e9-paragraph-6\" id=\"fdrlst__b89e9-6329960d21ecbe88f2959bbd626b7f78\"><\/div>\n<p>By contrast, the government\u2019s counsel argued that (c)(2) is meant to cover a much broader range of conduct because it should be interpreted as a \u201cstopgap\u201d or \u201cbackstop\u201d provision that sweeps into the statute things that are not expressly covered by (c)(1) or elsewhere in the other sections of 1512. The solicitor general explained that other features of 1512 and the way DOJ applies criminal obstruction statues, such as the <em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/why-the-jury-should-convict-michael-sussmann-of-lying-to-the-fbi-but-probably-wont\/\" title=\"Why The Jury Should Convict Michael Sussmann Of Lying To The FBI, But Probably Won\u2019t\">mens rea<\/a><\/em> requirement that the conduct be \u201ccorrupt,\u201d that there must be a \u201cnexus\u201d to an official proceeding, and that DOJ does not prosecute \u201cde minimis\u201d conduct, would serve to narrow the otherwise very broad scope of its interpretation of the language in (c)(2).<\/p>\n<p>In rebuttal, Fischer\u2019s lawyer pointed out that DOJ\u2019s interpretation, in response to hypotheticals raised by two different justices, would subject peaceful protests to prosecution under this felony statute, which carries a penalty of up to 20 years imprisonment.<\/p>\n<p>Only one justice \u2014 Justice Elena Kagan \u2014 seemed from her questions at least to be comfortable with the DOJ\u2019s interpretation, which would criminalize any \u201cobstruction,\u201d \u201cimpediment,\u201d or \u201cinfluencing\u201d of an official proceeding in a broad, general way, whether the conduct involved impairment of evidence or not, so long as the DOJ restricted its use of the statute through the other mechanisms the solicitor general described.<\/p>\n<p>Justice Samuel Alito pointedly asked, however, where in the text of the statute DOJ\u2019s supposed limiting mechanisms could be found (as only the <em>mens rea<\/em> of \u201ccorruptly\u201d is present in the statutory language). The solicitor general claimed the limitations were \u201cimplicit\u201d in the meanings of the words \u201cobstructs, influences, or impedes\u201d and in the requirement that there be an official proceeding. Alito then sparred with the solicitor general for several minutes about what would or would not be \u201cde minimis.\u201d<\/p>\n<div class=\"fdrlst__b89e9-b4ed7878e778283d2ec2a2df5cbd0a83 fdrlst__b89e9-paragraph-10\" id=\"fdrlst__b89e9-b4ed7878e778283d2ec2a2df5cbd0a83\"><\/div>\n<p>Justice Neil Gorsuch similarly inquired whether pulling a fire alarm to delay congressional voting would be prosecuted by DOJ under this felony, apparently in reference to the actual actions of a member of Congress in September 2023. In his rebuttal argument, Fischer\u2019s lawyer pointed out that another provision of 1512 states that the official proceeding need not be in progress or even about to be instituted, eliminating any supposed limiting effect of a \u201cnexus\u201d requirement.<\/p>\n<p>The advocates and justices debated the context and intent of Congress in passing subsection (c)(2), which was enacted after the infamous Enron\/Arther Anderson case showed that <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/republican-state-ags-threatening-legal-action-over-biden-administrations-expansion-of-taxpayer-funded-abortion\/\" title=\"Republican State AGs Threatening Legal Action Over Biden Administration\u2019s Expansion Of Taxpayer-Funded Abortion\">federal law prohibited<\/a> getting others to destroy documents, but not destroying them yourself. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a question that seemed to challenge the government\u2019s interpretation, referenced the legislative history of the section, which she said did not seem to indicate that Congress was contemplating conduct beyond the scope of evidence, i.e., the argument Fischer\u2019s lawyers were asserting. Both she and Justice Sotomayor pressed the solicitor general for positions or formulations that the court could potentially accept that were less broad than the government\u2019s central argument.<\/p>\n<p>The remainder of the justices, to varying degrees, expressed concerns with the breadth of the government\u2019s interpretation on technical or conceptual grounds. These ranged from outright sarcasm from Justice Gorsuch, who inquired about \u201cmostly peaceful protests\u201d presumably not being prosecuted, to skepticism from Justice Alito that a coherent line could be drawn for so-called minor conduct, to pointed comments by Justice John Roberts that the solicitor\u2019s statutory canon arguments were inconsistent across cases, to queries by Justices Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Barrett about the logic of the solicitor\u2019s attempts to reconcile subsections (c)(1) and (c)(2) together to achieve such a broad result.<\/p>\n<p>What is meant or required by the \u201cofficial proceeding\u201d aspect of the statute was touched upon several times in the argument, but not specifically debated. The technical rules of statutory construction and whether subsection (c)(2) is unconstitutionally overbroad were the main focuses of the argument, at one point with Justice Barrett and the solicitor general agreeing that a defendant could still raise a First Amendment challenge to the statute even under the government\u2019s interpretation.<\/p>\n<p>Indeed, a major problem with the government\u2019s interpretation of 1512(c)(2) in Fischer is that at base it would repose vast power in DOJ as the arbiter of when conduct rises to the level of obstruction based on factors that are not objectively specified in the statute.\u00a0It would allow prosecutors to decide to bring an obstruction charge because they \u201cknow it when they see it,\u201d which is exactly when a statute is usually deemed unconstitutionally vague and overbroad \u2014 because ordinary people cannot know what is and is not prohibited.<\/p>\n<p>On balance, the tone of the overall argument and individual justices\u2019 questions seemed to lean in favor of a majority of the court (perhaps five and possibly as many as seven justices) rejecting the government\u2019s broad reading of 1512(c)(2) and ruling for Fischer that the statute does not apply in the general context of the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol.<\/p>\n<p>The precise scope that the court gives to 1512(c)(2), however, could potentially leave open the possibility that a few defendants, including former President Trump, could still be charged under it using a narrower set of allegations. Such a case would then likely bring to the forefront some of the statute\u2019s other issues, which were only touched upon briefly in Tuesday\u2019s argument, such as the meaning of the \u201cofficial proceeding\u201d requirement.<\/p>\n<p>Absent extraordinary circumstances, the justices should render their decision and opinion in the case by the end of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/turley-bidens-black-female-supreme-court-requirement-unconstitutional-in-other-contexts\/\" title=\"Turley: Biden's Black, Female Supreme Court Requirement 'Unconstitutional' in Other Contexts\">current court term<\/a>, which traditionally closes June 30 of each calendar year.<\/p>\n<div class=\"fdrlst__b89e9-6128cfb6b651f38e0ab4a6ba76afedd5 fdrlst__b89e9-after-post-content\" id=\"fdrlst__b89e9-6128cfb6b651f38e0ab4a6ba76afedd5\"><\/div>\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator\">    \t\t\t\t\t   \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Tuesday morning, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Fischer v. United States, a case stemming from the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot. Joseph Fischer, like many others in similar cases, faces charges, including obstruction of an official proceeding<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2513,"featured_media":2222986,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/50824096082_37e4e04250_k.jpeg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[546],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2222985","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-federalist"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/50824096082_37e4e04250_k.jpeg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2222985","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2513"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2222985"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2222985\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2222986"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2222985"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2222985"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2222985"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}