Supreme Court Debates Scope of Federal Obstruction Statute in Capitol Breach Cases

The Supreme Court is set to weigh the scope of a federal obstruction statute used to prosecute hundreds of people who breached the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, in a legal battle that could have ramifications for the election interference case against former President Donald Trump.

Fischer v. U.S. Case

At the center of the court fight before the court Tuesday, known as Fischer v. U.S., is whether federal prosecutors can apply a law passed in the wake of the Enron scandal to the Jan. 6 assault.

The measure makes it a crime to "corruptly" obstruct or impede an official proceeding, and defense attorneys argue that the Justice Department has stretched the statute too far.

Application of the Law

The first provision of the law prohibits altering, destroying, mutilating, or concealing a document. Before the Jan. 6 attack, prosecutors had never used the statute in cases that did not involve evidence tampering. But since the unprecedented assault on the Capitol, it has been levied against more than 330 defendants who breached the building where Congress had convened a joint session to tally states' electoral votes.

Implications for Trump's Case

The outcome of the case is being closely watched because of the possible impacts to the charges against Trump, which stem from what Smith alleges was a multi-pronged plot to reverse the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.

If the court sides with Fischer, Trump could seek to have the two counts related to obstruction of an official proceeding dismissed. Trump's case has been paused for months as he seeks to have all four charges tossed out on the grounds he is entitled to presidential immunity. The Supreme Court will consider that issue next week.

The Obstruction Dispute - Ramifications

Separate from Trump, the obstruction dispute could also have repercussions for the Jan. 6 defendants who have already been convicted of the offense or pleaded guilty. A decision finding prosecutors' broad reading of the measure was wrong could prompt bids for new trials or lighter sentences.

Joseph Fischer's Case

One of those defendants, Joseph Fischer, brought the case currently before the Supreme Court after he was charged in a seven-count indictment in early 2021. Fischer, then a police officer in Pennsylvania, attended the "Stop the Steal" rally outside the White House and later entered the Capitol around 3:25 p.m. Prosecutors claimed he encouraged rioters to "charge" and ran into a line of officers while yelling an obscenity.

His lawyers, though, said Fischer was pushed by the crowd into a police line. Fischer was in the Capitol for less than four minutes, they told the court. Among the charges Fischer faced was assaulting a police officer, disorderly conduct and corruptly obstructing, influencing and impeding an official proceeding — Congress' certification of the Electoral College vote.

Legal Proceedings

Fischer moved to dismiss the count. U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols granted his request, determining that nothing in the indictment alleged that Fischer "took some action with respect to a document, record, or other object" in order to obstruct the congressional proceedings.

The Justice Department appealed Nichols' ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which ruled against Fischer in a divided decision last year.

Supreme Court's Review

Lawyers for Fischer asked the Supreme Court to review the D.C. Circuit's decision, and it agreed to do so in December. In filings with the high court, defense attorneys urged the justices to narrow the scope of the law, arguing it targets "discrete acts intended to affect the availability of evidence" used in an official proceeding.

Arguments

The Justice Department, though, said the text, context, and history of the provision shows it broadly bars a person from corruptly engaging in conduct to obstruct court, agency, and congressional proceedings.

Accepting Fischer's argument, wrote Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar in a Supreme Court brief, "would undermine Congress's effort to prohibit unanticipated methods of corruptly obstructing an official proceeding — such as petitioner's alleged conduct in joining a violent riot to disrupt the joint session of Congress certifying the presidential election results."

Impacts of a Decision

The Supreme Court said in December it would take up the case, and its decision to do so reverberated swiftly. Some defendants who were convicted of violating the obstruction statute but not yet sentenced sought to pause their proceedings until the justices rule, likely by the end of June.

If Fischer prevails and the high court finds the law narrowly covers corrupt evidence-related conduct, there could be dozens of defendants who have been convicted and seek resentencing, withdraw guilty pleas, or ask for a new trial.