U.S. Supreme Court ruling on obstruction law helps Jan. 6 defendants • Oregon Capital Chronicle

WASHINGTON A former Pennsylvania police officer who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol that delayed the certification of the 2020 presidential election results cannot be charged with obstructing an official proceeding unless a lower court orders otherwise, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday.

The ruling calls into question the cases of hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants who faced the same charge, as well as part of the Justice Department's special prosecutor's four-count indictment, Jack Smiths, alleging that former President Donald Trump plotted to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

But Attorney General Merrick Garland said after the ruling that he expected the decision would not affect the vast majority of the Jan. 6 cases.

In a 6-3 opinion, the justices, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, wrote that the charge against Fischer under a subsection of an obstruction law from the early 2000s can only apply to falsifying physical records.

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, d “objects or, as previously explained, other items used in the proceeding, or attempted to do so,” Roberts wrote.

The D.C. Circuit's judgment is therefore vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, Roberts wrote.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered a concurring opinion.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, issued a dissenting opinion.

Impact on the January 6 defendants and Trump

The move could affect more than 355 Jan. 6 defendants who were charged with the same crime, punishable by a fine and a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.

Dozens of people, including leaders of the extremist groups Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, have already been convicted on the charge, according to the Justice Department.

The case, Fischer v. United States, focused on whether Jan. 6 defendant Joseph W. Fischer violated the obstruction law when he joined the mob that breached the U.S. Capitol and delayed Congress and Vice President Mike Pence from certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election, which declared Democrat Joe Biden the winner.

Trump also faces an obstruction charge as part of his four-count federal indictment that alleges he worked with others to overturn election results in seven states, Press on Pence to join him and sent his base into a frenzy that culminated in the January 6 attack.

Trump will almost certainly contest this charge, as his legal team has already claimed he is completely immune to the charge.

Trump's lawyers, D. John Sauer and William Owen Scharf, did not respond to an emailed request for comment.

In fact, Trump's 2024 campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung responded to the email with a link to Trump's post on his social media platform Truth Social. The post, posted at 11:41 a.m. Friday, read BIG WIN!

The prosecution of those who participated in the January 6 riots has become a rallying cry for Republicans as the 2024 presidential election approaches. Trump, the presumptive Republican Party nominee, has repeatedly promised to pardon the accused.

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana told reporters Friday that the Supreme Court's decision indicates that, in effect, the court recognizes that a number of defendants in the Jan. 6 proceedings were overcharged.

And that's something that I think a lot of people have recognized for some time, and now the highest court in the land has said that's the case, Johnson said at a major news conference.

How were the charges brought?

The obstruction provision considered by the Supreme Court is contained in Section 1512(c) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, enacted after the Enron accounting scandal in 2001. The scandal erupted after the revelation that the energy company had falsified his financial records to inflate his worth.

This provision targets anyone who (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or corruptly conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the integrity of the objects or their availability for use in an official proceeding; or (2) obstructs, influences, or otherwise impedes an official proceeding, or attempts to do so.

Fischer and hundreds of other January 6 defendants, as well as Trump, are charged under the second paragraph, referred to in court documents as 1512(c)(2).

Much of the oral argument in April focused on whether the second part of the law was dependent on the first clause, meaning that the law could only be applied if physical evidence was involved.

The government argued that the two sides were distinct and that Fischer, who sent texts leading to the riot and is shown on police camera footage inside the Capitol, intended to disrupt a official congressional procedure.

Fischers' team argued that he did not actually enter the Capitol until Congress had already suspended the proceedings, and that he did not stay very long.

Last year, a lower federal court granted Fischer's motion to dismiss the felony charge.

A federal appeals panel in Washington, D.C., did not. Judge Florence Y. Pan, who also served on the panel during Trump’s presidential immunity appeal, wrote in the lead opinion that the law is unambiguous about what constitutes obstruction of an official proceeding.

Other expenses

The obstruction charge is not the only charge against Fischer following his participation in the January 6 riots.

The initial indictment against him also included charges of civil disorder, assaulting, resisting or obstructing certain officers, entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds, disorderly conduct and parading, demonstrating or picketing in a Capitol building, among others.

Fischer's attorney, Jeffrey Green, who spoke in person with the States' newsroom after oral arguments in April, told the outlet in an emailed statement Friday that his team was pleased.

The different opinions provide a particularly clear window into the different modalities of statutory interpretation among today's Court justices. And the impact of this opinion on other prosecutions remains to be seen, but we are pleased to have brought this criminal law back to its own evidence-tampering terrain, the Bethesda, Maryland-based attorney wrote.

Frederick Fritz Ulrich, a federal public defender for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and Fischer's attorney, told States Newsroom in a written response Friday that the Supreme Court interpreted the scope of Section 1512(c) consistently with Congress's purpose and our argument that it is a tampering with evidence offense, not some form of omnibus obstruction offense.

And ultimately, the government has many offenses it can charge to understand the conduct at issue. As for Mr. Fischer, the D.C. Circuit should ultimately return him to the district court for trial, Ulrich wrote.

The Ministry of Justice reacts

Garland said in a statement Friday that he was disappointed by the court's decision, which he said limits an important federal law that the department has sought to use to ensure that those primarily responsible for this attack face appropriate consequences.

However, Garland does not anticipate the decision will affect a significant portion of the hundreds of cases from Jan. 6, he said.

The vast majority of the more than 1,400 defendants charged for their illegal actions on January 6 will not be affected by this decision. There are no cases in which the department charged a Jan. 6 defendant solely for the offense at issue in Fischer's case, Garland continued.

The department will take appropriate steps to comply with the court's decision for all cases that are affected, he said.

“We will continue to use every tool available to hold accountable those criminally responsible for the January 6 attack on our democracy,” Garland said.

He described the riot as an attack on the cornerstone of our system of government, the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to another.

Majority Justices Question Government's Claims

Writing on behalf of the majority on Friday, Roberts disagreed with the DOJ's position that the two parts of the obstruction statute could be applied completely separately.

While the government's overall interpretation may be literally admissible, it defies the most plausible understanding of why (the two subsections) are joined, Roberts wrote.

Given that paragraph (c)(2) was enacted in response to the Enron disaster, not a new set of dangers, it is unlikely that Congress would have responded with such a vague and grossly incommensurable measure, he wrote, citing Judge Gregory Katsas' dissenting federal appeals opinion.

In her concurring opinion, Supreme Court Justice Jackson wrote that the high court correctly interpreted the law, rightly reversed the lower judgment and remanded this case for further proceedings.

Jackson wrote that Congress' certification of the results of the January 6, 2021, presidential election clearly relied on certain records, documents or objects, including, among other things, those relating to the electoral votes themselves.

And it may well be that Fischer's conduct, as alleged here, involved the deterioration (or attempted deterioration) of the availability or integrity of the things used during the January 6 proceedings of a manner other than those specified in (c)(1), she wrote, citing the first paragraph of the obstruction statute.

If so, the prosecution of Fischer under Section 1512(c)(2) can and should proceed. That question remains available to lower courts to decide on remand, Jackson concluded.

In her dissenting opinion, Barrett argued against the majority's narrowing of the paragraph's scope.

There is no way around this problem: Section 1512(c)(2) is a broad law, she wrote.

Congress, in writing the law, set the outer limits of liability, she continued.

The executive branch has the discretion to select particular cases to pursue within these limits. By narrowing textually the scope of Section 1512(c)(2), the Court failed to respect the prerogatives of political powers, Barrett concluded.

Shauneen Miranda contributed to this report.

Sources 1/ https://Google.com/ 2/ https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2024/06/29/u-s-supreme-court-ruling-on-obstruction-law-helps-cases-of-jan-6-defendants/ The mention sources can contact us to remove/changing this article

What Are The Main Benefits Of Comparing Car Insurance Quotes Online

LOS ANGELES, CA / ACCESSWIRE / June 24, 2020, / Compare-autoinsurance.Org has launched a new blog post that presents the main benefits of comparing multiple car insurance quotes. For more info and free online quotes, please visit https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/the-advantages-of-comparing-prices-with-car-insurance-quotes-online/ The modern society has numerous technological advantages. One important advantage is the speed at which information is sent and received. With the help of the internet, the shopping habits of many persons have drastically changed. The car insurance industry hasn't remained untouched by these changes. On the internet, drivers can compare insurance prices and find out which sellers have the best offers. View photos The advantages of comparing online car insurance quotes are the following: Online quotes can be obtained from anywhere and at any time. Unlike physical insurance agencies, websites don't have a specific schedule and they are available at any time. Drivers that have busy working schedules, can compare quotes from anywhere and at any time, even at midnight. Multiple choices. Almost all insurance providers, no matter if they are well-known brands or just local insurers, have an online presence. Online quotes will allow policyholders the chance to discover multiple insurance companies and check their prices. Drivers are no longer required to get quotes from just a few known insurance companies. Also, local and regional insurers can provide lower insurance rates for the same services. Accurate insurance estimates. Online quotes can only be accurate if the customers provide accurate and real info about their car models and driving history. Lying about past driving incidents can make the price estimates to be lower, but when dealing with an insurance company lying to them is useless. Usually, insurance companies will do research about a potential customer before granting him coverage. Online quotes can be sorted easily. Although drivers are recommended to not choose a policy just based on its price, drivers can easily sort quotes by insurance price. Using brokerage websites will allow drivers to get quotes from multiple insurers, thus making the comparison faster and easier. For additional info, money-saving tips, and free car insurance quotes, visit https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/ Compare-autoinsurance.Org is an online provider of life, home, health, and auto insurance quotes. This website is unique because it does not simply stick to one kind of insurance provider, but brings the clients the best deals from many different online insurance carriers. In this way, clients have access to offers from multiple carriers all in one place: this website. On this site, customers have access to quotes for insurance plans from various agencies, such as local or nationwide agencies, brand names insurance companies, etc. "Online quotes can easily help drivers obtain better car insurance deals. All they have to do is to complete an online form with accurate and real info, then compare prices", said Russell Rabichev, Marketing Director of Internet Marketing Company. CONTACT: Company Name: Internet Marketing CompanyPerson for contact Name: Gurgu CPhone Number: (818) 359-3898Email: [email protected]: https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/ SOURCE: Compare-autoinsurance.Org View source version on accesswire.Com:https://www.Accesswire.Com/595055/What-Are-The-Main-Benefits-Of-Comparing-Car-Insurance-Quotes-Online View photos