The Supreme Court is scheduled to review a case on Tuesday that could have significant consequences for numerous defendants involved in the events of January 6th, as well as impact the ongoing prosecution led by special counsel Jack Smith against former President Donald Trump.
The case in question, Fischer v. United States, calls upon the Supreme Court to assess the extent of an obstruction statute, Section 1512(c)(2), which imposes penalties on individuals who corruptly “obstruct, influence, or impede any official proceeding,” with a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. Joseph Fischer, who participated in the events at the Capitol on January 6th, contends that his prosecution under this law for obstructing Congress’ certification of the 2020 election represents an “unprecedented expansion” of the statute.
Fischer argues that the law, which was enacted as part of the Corporate Fraud and Accountability Act of 2002, was originally designed to address evidence tampering and was primarily focused on “deterring fraud and abuse by corporate executives.”
“Before the January 6 cases, no court had applied Section 1512(c)(2) to conduct not intended to affect the availability or integrity of evidence,” Fischer’s attorneys argued in a brief. “Nor had a defendant ever been convicted of an obstruction-of-Congress offense outside the context of a legislative inquiry or investigation.”
Fischer claimed that he spent less than four minutes in the Capitol, after Congress had already adjourned, and denied being part of the mob that disrupted the electoral certification. However, he was arrested in February 2021 and faces multiple charges, including assaulting Capitol police.
If the Supreme Court were to side with Fischer, it could have implications not only for his own case but also for numerous defendants charged by the Department of Justice (DOJ) with a felony under the same statute. According to the DOJ, out of the nearly 1,387 Jan. 6 defendants, over 353 have been charged with “corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding.”
Prior to the ruling, some defendants, such as Kevin Seefried, Alexander Sheppard, and Thomas B. Adams Jr., have already been granted early release, as reported by The Washington Post.
“It takes four justices to grant certiorari and, although this court will not attempt to read tea leaves, the Supreme Court’s decision to review Fischer means, at a minimum, that this case poses a ‘close question,’” District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta wrote.
The government argues that the text “is not limited to conduct that affects the integrity or availability of evidence.”
“Instead, Congress adopted a traditional catchall clause, reaching all forms of corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding,” it said.
In an April 2023 ruling, the government’s interpretation was favored by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals with a 2-1 majority, as they found the “meaning of the statute is unambiguous.”
“Under the most natural reading of the statute, §1512(c)(2) applies to all forms of corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding,” Judge Florence Pan wrote.
But Judge Gregory Katsas argued the government’s interpretation was “mistaken,” making it “implausibly broad and unconstitutional in a significant number of applications.”
“Among other things, that construction would sweep in advocacy, lobbying, and protest—common mechanisms by which citizens attempt to influence official proceedings,” he wrote. “Historically, these activities did not constitute obstruction unless they directly impinged on a proceeding’s truth-seeking function through acts such as bribing a decisionmaker or falsifying evidence presented to it.”
“The government’s reading is also hard to reconcile with the structure and history of section 1512, and with decades of precedent applying section 1512(c) only to acts that affect the integrity or availability of evidence,” he wrote.
Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Representative Jim Jordan of the House Judiciary Committee, and 21 other congressional members expressed in a legal document submitted to the Supreme Court that the decision made by the lower court would encourage the misuse of inappropriate criminal laws for political purposes, resulting in severe consequences.
Just when you thought Jack Smith's J6 case against Donald Trump couldn't get any more laughable–it just did.
In one week, SCOTUS will hear arguments on DOJ's (ab)use of 1512c2, post Enron document shredding "obstruction of an official proceeding" statute passed in 2002.
My… pic.twitter.com/1MNLAWSHnp
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) April 9, 2024
In April, the Supreme Court will consider Trump’s request to dismiss his election interference case on the grounds of presidential immunity. However, the Fischer case could also pose a threat to a portion of the indictment. Specifically, two of the charges against Trump in his election interference case revolve around the obstruction statute. According to Smith’s indictment, Trump allegedly utilized knowingly false claims of election fraud to impede the proper functioning of the federal government’s process of collecting, counting, and certifying election results. Richard A. Epstein, a law professor at New York University, argued in a March article for the Hoover Institution that a careful interpretation of the statute undermines a significant aspect of the Smith indictment.
“Trump never entered the Capitol building, and he never made any statement urging rioters to enter the building,” he wrote. “His despicable conduct consisted of watching the proceedings before asking the rioters and trespassers to leave the premises, which does not count as obstruction under any legal authority of which I am aware.”
In his recent brief filed this week regarding Trump’s election interference, Smith discussed this matter in a footnote. He asserted that the charges would remain valid irrespective of the Supreme Court’s ruling on the interpretation of Section 1512(c)(2). Smith further emphasized that the act of using falsehoods or fabricating ‘false’ documents would indeed impede the evidence, supporting this interpretation.
Currently, Trump’s case is in a state of suspension at the district court, awaiting the decision of the justices. Oral arguments have been scheduled for April 25 to deliberate on Trump’s argument of presidential immunity.
