The Supreme Court narrowed the scope of an obstruction charge used against Jan. 6 defendants, in a 6-3 ruling authored by Chief Justice John Roberts.
The case is one of two key end-of-term rulings stemming from alleged efforts to subvert the 2020 election that culminated in the deadly Jan. 6 insurrection. The other is Donald Trump’s immunity appeal in his federal election interference case, which hasn’t been decided yet and is expected Monday with the term’s final decisions.
This case, Fischer v. United States, involves the scope of a federal criminal obstruction law used against Jan. 6 defendants (including Trump himself). The defendant, Joseph Fischer, argued that the charge of obstructing an official proceeding is meant for evidence tampering rather than rioting. Two of Trump’s four counts in his Washington indictment involve this obstruction statute (the other two are conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and conspiracy against rights).
“To prove a violation of Section 1512(c)(2), the Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or as we earlier explained, other things used in the proceeding, or attempted to do so,” Roberts wrote for the court. Notably, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the dissent, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joining Roberts’ opinion while writing her own separate concurrence.
“The peaceful transfer of power is a fundamental democratic norm, and those who attempted to disrupt it in this way inflicted a deep wound on this Nation,” Jackson wrote, adding that “today’s case is not about the immorality of those acts. Instead, the question before this Court is far narrower” regarding the scope of the law at issue.
Barrett wrote in dissent that the majority “atextually” narrowed the law and “failed to respect the prerogatives of the political branches.”
Whatever effect it has or doesn’t have on Trump’s case, Fischer’s appeal also implicated charges against other defendants in the Justice Department’s massive effort to prosecute Jan. 6 rioters.
As in Trump’s immunity appeal, Justice Clarence Thomas’ participation casts a shadow over it since he ignored calls to recuse from Jan. 6-related cases despite his wife Ginni Thomas’ backing of Trump’s effort to subvert the 2020 election. Justice Samuel Alito recently attempted to explain his decision to participate in these cases despite flags flying outside of his houses that Capitol rioters also carried.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for weekly updates on the top legal stories, including news from the Supreme Court, the Donald Trump cases and more.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
EMEA Tribune is not involved in this news article, it is taken from our partners and or from the News Agencies. Copyright and Credit go to the News Agencies, email news@emeatribune.com Follow our WhatsApp verified Channel
