As a result of her vote, the Supreme Court majority left the charges against felon and former president Donald Trump unchanged (for now) and significantly limited the impact on hundreds of other cases connected to the January 6th riot. Only a small proportion of the January 6 defendants will actually be affected..
The obstruction statute, which was at issue in many of the January 6 cases, 18 USC Section 1512(c)(1), prohibits “the alteration, destruction, mutilation, or concealment of any record, document, or other object with intent to impair its integrity or its usability in any official proceeding. Courts have had to decide what conduct falls within the scope of the obstruction statute.” Subsequent sections 1512(c)(2) punishes conduct that “obstructs, influences, or impedes, or attempts to do so, any official proceeding.”
What does “otherwise” mean? The Court refused to adopt either the broadest or narrowest definition available. Instead, it ruled:
As explained above, subsection (c)(1) refers to a defined set of criminal acts, namely, four types of conduct that, by their nature, impair the integrity or availability of records, documents, or objects used in an official proceeding. If the phrase “otherwise obstructing, affecting, or impeding an official proceeding” is interpreted as being given more precision by that narrower list of acts, then subsection (c)(2) makes it a crime to impair the availability or integrity of records, documents, or objects used in an official proceeding in any manner other than those specified in subsection (c)(1). For example, one could violate (c)(2) by creating false evidence rather than falsifying incriminating evidence.
It covers crimes such as creating a false document (such as a fake election ballot), but not general obstruction. The crime must be linked to the object or document at issue in the lawsuit.
The key to understanding this decision is Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s concurring opinion, in which she explained exactly what the Court did:
Joseph Fisher is charged with violating §1512(c)(2) by improperly interfering with a congressional proceeding, specifically the certification of the electoral votes by Congress. That official proceeding clearly involved the use of certain records, documents, or objects, including those related to the electoral votes themselves. And, as alleged herein, Fisher’s conduct may well have involved impairing (or attempting to impair) the availability or integrity of objects used during the January 6 proceeding “in a manner other than as specified in (c)(1).” If so, Fisher’s prosecution under §1512(c)(2) may and should proceed.
In other words, this A defendant may be convicted for conduct relating to records, documents or items in parliamentary proceedings. if He was attempting to destroy election ballots. (Fischer was also charged with other offenses under other statutes.)
“As Justice Jackson’s concurring opinion makes clear, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Section 1512(c) is broad enough to cover Fischer’s alleged conduct,” Matthew Seligman, a constitutional scholar who wrote the amicus brief for the case, told me. “The January 6th mob violently stormed the Capitol, preventing Congress from convening to obtain the counted electoral certificates, and forcing Senate officials to flee the building to avoid the certificates being destroyed.” In short, Seligman concludes that “the Court narrowed the government’s broad interpretation, but did so in a way that has little or no impact on the actual January 6th case.”
In other words, create The falsification of voter rolls (which Trump is said to have done) could still be prosecuted. So this decision essentially no It is unclear how the ruling will affect Trump, who was indicted on four criminal counts, including conspiracy to violate Section 1512(c)(2) and Section 1512(c)(2). Allegations that Trump engaged in creating false electoral rolls fit squarely within the court’s ruling. (Depending on the fine print, the court’s immunity clause could limit Trump’s prosecution.)
As for the remaining defendants in the January 6 riot, the Justice Department made clear in a statement released after the ruling: “The vast majority of the more than 1,400 defendants charged with unlawful conduct on January 6 are not affected by this ruling. In no case has the Department of Justice charged a January 6 defendant solely with the crimes at issue.” Fisher.”
Just Security co-founder Ryan Goodman says the media has overstated Fischer’s impact: [the defendants] “They pleaded guilty, but not to obstruction,” he stressed. “They pleaded guilty to other charges. Those charges and sentences are in no way affected by the Supreme Court’s decision.” Might be to be influenced.
For example, all 128 people convicted at trial under 1512(c)(2) were also convicted of other crimes. In the worst case scenario, they would have to be resentenced if their 1512(c)(2) conduct did not fall under the Supreme Court’s ruling. Not only that, but Just Security’s legal experts say: The Court found that “of the 71 defendants indicted under section 1512(c)(2) who are still awaiting trial, all have been charged with offenses in addition to section 1512(c)(2), and the majority have been charged with one or more other felonies.” Depending on the facts, the section 1512(c)(2) indictments may be dismissed or may be sentenced as charged.
Of the very few defendants (48) who pleaded guilty to obstruction under 1512(c)(2), 22 were also charged with other felonies. The remaining 26 pleaded only to the 1512(c)(2) charge. 11 Some of them could be charged with other felonies, including disturbing the peace and theft of government property.
A total of 11 defendants (who pleaded guilty only to the 1512(c)(2) charge and no other felonies) will likely have their sentences reduced to misdemeanors. (There is also a group of 73 who have been convicted at trial or are awaiting trial on one or more misdemeanors in addition to 1512(c)(2).) And that’s it. Fisher The prison doors will never open, providing no solace to Trump.
This is not an advocacy for the rationality of the right-wing majority. There is no denying the unbridled activism of the Supreme Court, which has stripped enormous power from the executive branch and Congress this term. We have certainly witnessed an unbridled imperial court take the government back to the 1920s (no regulation of air, water, workplace safety, etc.) and individual rights back to the 19th century. It has ignored democracy, which gives policy-making power to its elected representatives. Rather, Fisher This is the only exception and an example of judicial ingenuity.
Two further points are worth mentioning. Most vividly, this case serves as another clear example of the mainstream media rushing to hysterical conclusions. Hyperbolic headlines after the ruling suggested hundreds of cases would be overturned. They were inaccurate. Accuracy should trump clickbait. Second, if Trump appoints more justices to the Supreme Court and other federal courts in his second term, the damage this court causes may not be stopped. The prospect that the court could get even worse should send chills down the spine of every American.
