CNN
—
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments Tuesday from a former Pennsylvania state trooper who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, in a case that could invalidate federal charges against more than 350 rioters. .
The court’s decision could also have significant implications for former President Donald Trump, who has been charged with the same criminal offense.
Special Counsel Jack Smith charged President Trump with violating a 2002 federal law that prohibits obstructing an “official proceeding.” Prosecutors have accused hundreds of rioters, including a so-called “QAnon shaman” who climbed to the Senate floor podium wearing a horned headdress and a leader of the Oath Keepers who championed a “bloody civil war” in the civil war. Similar accusations were made against others. Weeks before the riot.
This charge could carry a prison sentence of up to 20 years.
The Supreme Court will now consider whether the prosecutor’s interpretation of the law can be applied to the rioters and whether the conviction that has already been finalized will be upheld.
Trump will almost certainly use the decision against the government to His attempt to reframe the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol as a “great day” has fueled his criticism of prosecutors.
And that means the stakes are high, not just for Trump and the January 6 defendants, but also for the Justice Department.
“It would be politically very damaging if the Justice Department was found to have improperly prosecuted any of these cases,” said Claire Finkelstein, a professor of law and philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania’s Carey Law School. Deaf,” he said. “This is a case where we want our entire system to speak with one voice and give voice to the rule of law.”
The high court is scheduled to hear arguments in the next period Fisher vs. America The second day of Trump’s trial in New York, in another state. He was accused of falsifying business records to conceal a hush-money refund to adult film star Stormy Daniels. (Trump has maintained his innocence in the case and has sought to characterize all criminal charges against him as politically motivated.)
The charges at issue in the Supreme Court case stem from a law Congress enacted in response to a series of corporate accounting scandals, including the 2001 Enron scandal. The law prohibits “unauthorized” alteration, destruction or mutilation of records for the purpose of rendering them unusable in “official proceedings” or “otherwise” interfering with, affecting or obstructing such proceedings. It is considered a serious crime.
Prosecutors say the simple meaning of the word “obstruct” an “official process” should cover attacks that disrupted Congress’ work to certify President Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election. Therefore, they argue that this charge should be applied to the January 6 incident.
Critics counter that the law is aimed at preventing tampering with evidence before a trial or investigation.
Although Trump is not a party to the lawsuit, the appeal indirectly puts him before the Supreme Court for the third time this election year. In March, the justices unanimously ruled that Colorado’s The court ruled that it will appear on the ballot.
Next week, the court is scheduled to hear arguments on President Trump’s explosive claim that he is entitled to immunity from a special federal prosecutor. Election destruction case including obstruction charges.
Joseph Fisher, a former Pennsylvania state trooper who brought the case to the Supreme Court, told the justices that by the time he arrived at the Capitol on January 6, Congress was already in session. Lawyers said Fisher spent less than four minutes in the building and traveled less than 8 meters.
Prosecutors are painting a different picture. Fisher reportedly warned the police chief in a text message that there might be violence that day. He said in an email that protesters should “drag Democrats to the streets and bring them to mass trial.” Fisher filmed himself on his cell phone yelling “Charge!” before he stormed the Capitol, according to prosecutors.
Weeks after the attack, a grand jury returned a seven-count indictment against Fisher, including treason. charges of assault, resisting, obstructing, and obstructing a police officer; The case before the Supreme Court includes only the final accusation.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit consolidated Fisher’s case with two others, siding with 14 of the 15 district court judges who had issued similar rulings against the defendants on January 6. The court ruled that this charge could be applied. All three defendants appealed to the Supreme Court, but the judge only accepted Fisher’s case. The remaining two cases are pending and are likely to be resolved immediately following Fisher’s ruling.
But the political implications are potentially huge.
It’s unclear exactly how much of an impact the court’s decision will have on the other January 6 cases. According to a CNN analysis, most defendants convicted of obstruction and sentenced to prison were also convicted of additional felonies or misdemeanors. The average sentence for these cases is just over four years, far less than the maximum sentence allowed for obstruction charges, which is 20 years, according to the analysis.
“Mr. Fisher’s victory will not be a revolutionary blow to the Justice Department’s handling of the Capitol riot case, but it will be a stark reminder that impossibly broad interpretations of criminal law are unacceptable. ” said Nicholas Smith, who represented the defendants in D.C. Circuit Court.
Mr. Trump is almost certain to use Mr. Fisher’s victory to further weaken the Justice Department. Depending on the court’s ruling, he may seek to have the charges dismissed in his own case.
The special counsel appears to want to end this debate.
In his petition to the Supreme Court last week in Trump’s immunity case, Smith argued that obstruction charges should apply to Trump even if Fisher wins. In a footnote, Smith pointed out that Trump’s accusations were based on a fake electoral roll that he tried to submit to Congress.
“Mr. Trump’s charges will probably survive whatever the courts decide against Mr. Fisher,” said Randall Eliason, a former federal prosecutor and George Washington University law professor. said.
Progressive groups asked Judge Clarence Thomas to remove Ginny Thomas, the wife of a conservative activist, from lawsuits related to the Jan. 6 attack after she acknowledged attending a Trump rally at the White House before the attack. I’m asking you to pull it. Text messages reviewed by a Congressional committee showed that Ginny Thomas repeatedly texted senior White House officials after the election to express her support.
Thomas largely ignored those requests.
Fisher relies heavily on a 2015 precedent from the Supreme Court, which was sharply divided around the commercial issue. A fisherman caught a small red grouper on a boat.. The fishermen had ordered the fish to be thrown overboard before authorities determined they had violated federal fishing regulations.
The fisherman was found guilty of a related charge that prohibits altering or destroying “any record, document, or tangible object” with the intent to obstruct an investigation. The government argued that the fish fell under the definition of a “tangible object.”
But a 5-4 majority of the court, which included Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the court’s liberal leader at the time, and Justice Samuel Alito, a staunch conservative, disagreed. Viewed in context, courts have reasoned that “tangible matter” includes items “used to record or store information,” such as documents, rather than fish.
Fisher told the Supreme Court that the background and history of the law at issue in the Jan. 6 prosecution is equally clear. His lawyers argue that the law applies to evidence tampering and is not intended to prosecute those involved in the riot.
However, that interpretation has provoked considerable opposition from the government and some outside experts. The way the law at issue in the Jan. 6 complaint is written is different from how it was written in previous lawsuits.
The “obstruction” clause is more separate, and the Justice Department argues it suggests Congress intended to create a broad prohibition on disrupting Congressional proceedings.
Eliasson believes that an early decision on small fish will probably ultimately benefit the government. Among those who joined the dissent in the Fisherman case was the late Justice Antonin Scalia, a leader in the widely accepted concept of interpreting laws based on their text rather than legislative history or other factors. There were too.
“If their argument is consistent, at least two of the three Trump justices should vote against Mr. Fisher’s position,” Eliason said. “There is no ambiguity. This is a broad law, but it is not unclear.”
