More than 100 cases as of this month The rioters have been convicted and sentenced under the same law of obstructing or impeding an official proceeding, in this case on January 6 to formally certify Joe Biden’s 2020 victory. A joint session of Congress was convened on the day of.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on whether prosecutors unduly stretched the law by charging people with that violation in the first place.
The high court’s ruling, likely to be handed down in late June, could reverse the convictions and sentences of those who have already gone to trial or have pleaded guilty, and overturn the still-pending charges of many more. There is sex. The sentences of the three defendants on January 6th have already been commuted prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The court’s ruling could have political implications for this year’s election, as likely Republican nominee Donald Trump has made accusations of prosecutorial overreach a central part of his appeal to voters. . The case could also directly impact Trump’s own trial for allegedly trying to stay in power after his 2020 defeat. Two of the four charges he faces are under obstruction laws, and he could move to have those charges dismissed if the Supreme Court rules in the mob’s favor. There is.
Defense attorneys claim prosecutors overreached The charges against the rioters are limited to destroying or tampering with evidence sought by law enforcement authorities.Broad application of the law by the government and lawyers Court filings warn that prosecutors will be able to target protesters and lobbyists who disrupt parliamentary committees.
The Justice Department said it has never seen prosecutors use the 20-year-old statute to target such conduct, which is protected by the First Amendment. Government lawyers argue that violent interference with the peaceful transfer of power after the presidential election, such as attacks on police officers, is no minor obstruction.
However, the challengers Although this argument may be persuasive to some Supreme Court Justices, Several of them have voted in the past few years to narrow the application of other laws they say are too broad. One example is the high court’s 2016 unanimous decision overturning former Virginia Governor Robert F. McDonnell’s corruption conviction. In it, the court expressed concern about prosecutors’ “open-ended interpretations” of federal bribery laws.
Attorney Roman Martinez went to the Supreme Court 10 years ago. Defends the government’s use of obstruction laws similar to those that were the focus of Tuesday’s debate.he The court said it had reviewed the case on January 6 and decided to consider it more closely. This is consistent with the courts’ recent trend toward narrowing prosecutorial discretion.
Martinez, who served as a law clerk to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. in 2009, said: “For the past 10 years, there have been very serious tensions in the courts, and there have been concerns that prosecutors are over-prosecuting.” “There is,” he said. Since then, he has handled more than a dozen cases at the Supreme Court. “Courts are very focused on ensuring that criminal law is not overstretched.”
Much of Tuesday’s debate is expected to center on how to properly interpret a provision in the Congressional statute that was amended in 2002 as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in response to the Enron scandal. The meaning of the phrase “otherwise” will play a central role as judges consider how narrowly or broadly prosecutors can apply the law.
This law states: “(1) A person who corruptly alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals records, documents, or other objects, or attempts to do so with the intention of impairing social status.” carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. Object integrity or whether it can be used in formal procedures. or (2) interfere with, influence, or interfere with any other official proceeding or attempt to do so. ”
Attorney General Elizabeth B. Preloger, defending the Department of Justice, told the court in a filing that Section 2: The provision prohibits “unanticipated methods of corruptly interfering with public proceedings, such as occupying the Capitol and forcing the suspension of a joint session of Congress certifying election results,” while also allowing judges to It should be read as a “catch ball” that gives discretion to adjust sentences. punishment for the crime. ”
The word “otherwise” is used in a different sense, and the preloger indicates that Congress intended to prohibit interference broader than the destruction of records and documents described in the first section of the law. writing.
Joseph W. Fisher, an off-duty Pennsylvania state trooper who attended the Stop the Steal rally, strongly disagrees. He disputed the decision to charge him with obstruction of Congress, one of several charges Fischer faces, including assaulting federal officers in a police line outside the Capitol. It is one.
Fisher’s lawyers say the two sections of the law must be read together. And courts must reject the government’s “open-ended” interpretation. The purpose of the obstruction measures, they argue, is to maintain the availability of evidence. Congressional interest in protecting the integrity of an investigation or other official proceeding.
“The government believes that the courts have distorted Congress’s efforts and that prosecutors have no control over future litigation,” Fischer’s legal team of federal public defenders and Jeffrey T. Green of Northwestern Law School said in a filing. We should propose the creation of an omnibus obstruction crime that can be used in “If ever there was a case where judicial restraint was required because Congress could expand the law to suit the government’s wishes, this is it.”
All but one of the 15 judges assigned to cases related to January 6th DC Federal Court The court sided with the government on the issue, ruling that the rioters who sought to stop Congress from certifying Biden’s victory were “otherwise” obstructing the process. The outlier was Trump candidate U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols, who said the term “other” refers only to other efforts to alter or destroy records and documents.
A divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, led by Justice Florence Pan, a Biden nominee, overturned the ruling. — This statement is too narrow in scope and contradicts the text of the statute. “We cannot assume, and we believe it is unlikely, that Congress would have used expansive language to address such narrow concerns,” she wrote, joined in part by Justice Justin Walker. ., A person nominated by President Trump.
Judge Gregory Katsas — Trump also nominated — disagreed, writing that a broad reading of the law prohibits law-abiding activities such as lobbying and protesting. At risk. “Historically, these activities have not constituted obstruction unless they directly affected the truth-seeking function of the case through acts such as bribing decision makers or tampering with submitted evidence,” he wrote. Ta.
The Court’s Conservative Majority (Inclusive) Three of President Trump’s high court nominees, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Neil M. Gorsuch, are supporters of textualism. Textualism is a method of legal interpretation that considers only the text of the law under consideration, rather than the intent of the legislator or the interpretation of the law. Consequences of decisions.
Randall Eliason, a former federal prosecutor and author of many books on the case, said the government could win a majority in the case if enough justices adhere to the text’s plain language. Stated. In other words, “if not” means exactly that.
But many other analysts expect the court to be sympathetic to concerns about expanded prosecutorial powers and rule against the government. They noted, among other things, that at least the following votes were obtained: Four of the nine judges must accept the case.
Over the past decade, courts have narrowed the application of several other criminal laws while expressing concerns about prosecutorial overreach. In addition to overturning McDonnell’s conviction in 2016, the court also overturned the convictions of his political allies, saying the federal government went too far in prosecuting them in political retaliation. Remanded to Mr. Christie. And in 2015, a court said prosecutors exploited broad obstruction laws to go after Florida fishermen.
The fishing captain He was charged with violating another section of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which makes it a crime to destroy “records, documents, or tangible property” to obstruct an investigation.he After being cited, he threw the smaller grouper out of the boat and was found guilty of tampering with evidence.The court overturned the conviction and the small fish It is not a type of “tangible object” that is subject to the law.
Of the justices still on the court, Justices Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Samuel A. Alito Jr. agreed with the outcome. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan dissented, joined by conservative Justice Clarence Thomas and the late Justice Antonin Scalia, an ardent textualist. Kagan said the law is clear and grouper is clearly a tangible property.
The majority’s “real problem” with the law, she wrote, is that it reflects “overcriminalization and excessive punishment in American law.” She added that the court should conclude that Congress “said what it meant and meant what it said,” and not rewrite the law.
If the Supreme Court rules against the government in a case known as Fisher vs. America, President Trump could move to dismiss two of D.C.’s four charges. That case was already on hold pending the outcome of a separate case to be heard by the Supreme Court later this month. The case will test President Trump’s claim that he will not be prosecuted for his actions while in the White House.
But some analysts say special counsel Jack Smith, who is prosecuting Mr. Trump, may tailor the case against the former president to fit within the contours of a ruling in favor of Mr. Fisher.
Unlike the defendants on January 6, Trump has not been charged with obstruction for entering or exiting the Capitol.he Participating in a scheme to submit false presidential elector rolls (false evidence) in order to destroy legitimate ballots and disrupt the certification process, to push the lie that the election was stolen, and to pressure state officials; is accused of attempting to exploit false claims of mass fraud. , the Justice Department and Vice President Mike Pence called for changing the outcome.
Even if the Supreme Court ruled that the obstruction charge did not apply to the rioters’ actions, the special counsel told the high court that the charge would still be valid against Mr. Trump.
Trump has denied any wrongdoing, but the Washington, D.C., indictment charges him with two other crimes. It was a conspiracy to deceive the United States and deprive Americans of their right to have their votes counted.
Spencer S. Hsu and Tom Jackman contributed to this report.
