The Supreme Court on Friday erased charges against a Jan. 6 protester whom prosecutors had charged with obstructing the Electoral College count, saying the government was stretching too far a law written to criminalize people who hindered an investigation.
The ruling is a victory for hundreds of protesters the Justice Department has charged under the obstruction law. It could even have implications for former President Donald Trump, who is facing his own federal obstruction charges related to attempts to submit alternate slates of electors in the 2020 election.
Federal prosecutors said the 2002 law, passed in the wake of the Enron accounting scandal and designed to capture conduct where someone ordered another person to disrupt a probe, applied to the Jan. 6 protesters since their demonstration at the Capitol sent lawmakers hurrying for cover and disrupted the Electoral College count for hours.
But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the government misread the scope of the law.
“If Congress had wanted to authorize such penalties for any conduct that delays or influences a proceeding in any way, it would have said so,” the chief justice wrote.
He said to read the law otherwise would mean all sorts of common activities by lobbyists and activists who try to influence the government.
His ruling was joined by four other GOP-appointed justices and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Biden nominee.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, penned the dissent, saying the way she read the law, Congress did intend to grant wide latitude to prosecutors.
“There is no getting around it: Section 1512(c)(2) is an expansive statute. Yet Congress, not this court, weighs the ’pros and cons of whether a statute should sweep broadly or narrowly,’” Justice Barrett wrote.
Attorney General Merrick Garland said he was disappointed in the ruling but vowed that those who took part in the Jan. 6 protest will still face justice.
“The vast majority of the more than 1,400 defendants charged for their illegal actions on January 6 will not be affected by this decision. There are no cases in which the [Justice Department] charged a January 6 defendant only with the offense at issue in Fischer,” he said in a statement.
He said the department would “take appropriate steps” in cases where the obstruction charge was used.
The case was brought by Joseph Fischer, a former police officer who attended the “Stop the Steal” rally on the Ellipse near the White House on Jan. 6, 2021. He and a companion then left town. After learning of the crowd at the Capitol, they returned, though not until after the Electoral College counting was suspended.
Mr. Fischer entered the Capitol, made it about 20 feet into the building and was pushed by the crowd into a line of officers using pepper spray. He then left the building. He was inside for four minutes.
Federal authorities charged Mr. Fischer with seven counts related to the Jan. 6 protest, but the one before the justices was Title 18, Section 1512(c), which reads:
“Whoever corruptly — (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”
The charge was brought against more than 300 of the roughly 1,200 Jan. 6 defendants. The Associated Press reports that at least 152 have been convicted or pleaded guilty, with 108 sentenced.
A U.S. district judge in the District of Columbia sided with Mr. Fischer and dismissed the charge, ruling that the law didn’t apply to the events of Jan. 6. The circuit court reversed that decision.
Judges had debated whether the word “otherwise” means the second part of the statute, modifies the first or whether it’s independent.
In Friday’s ruling, the majority offered the example of a football rule that barred specific actions such as pulling on a face mask or helmet to injure a player, “or otherwise” attacking a player.
“If a linebacker shouts insults at the quarterback and hurts his feelings, has the linebacker nonetheless followed the rule? Of course he has. The examples of prohibited actions all concern dangerous physical conduct that might inflict bodily harm; trash talk is simply not of that kind,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote.
But Justice Barrett said the “otherwise” was indeed intended to sweep up broad conduct. She called it a “catchall” law, enacted after Congress learned that the law, while banning shredding of documents to hinder a probe, did not criminalize ordering someone else to do so.
“Subsection (c)(2) reflects Congress’ desire to avoid future surprises,” she wrote.
Correction: This article has been corrected to reflect Joseph Fischer’s case status. His charges are pending, and he is on pretrial release.
• Stephen Dinan can be reached at sdinan@washingtontimes.com.
• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.