Former President Donald Trump wasn’t part of last week’s Supreme Court ruling on criminal charges for Jan. 6 Capitol rioters, but legal experts say the decision could still help him unravel one of the federal prosecutions he’s facing.
The justices, in a 6-3 ruling, said a law passed in the wake of the Enron scandal that criminalizes obstruction of an official proceeding can’t be stretched to snare the mob who disrupted the Electoral College count.
Special counsel Jack Smith has brought the same obstruction charge against Mr. Trump as part of one of his two cases against the former president. That case alleges that Mr. Trump illegally tried to subvert the 2020 election results, and two of the four charges in the indictment stem from the obstruction law.
Legal analysts said if the law doesn’t apply to those who stormed the U.S. Capitol, it likely won’t apply to Mr. Trump either. That would upend Mr. Smith’s indictment.
“There is a very real possibility that if it is not dismissed, it would have to be replead or reindicted,” said Theodore Cooperstein, an appellate attorney representing some Jan. 6 defendants.
Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor, said the ruling is devastating to Mr. Smith’s case.
“For Trump, this rips the wings off the plane that Jack Smith has been trying to take off in D.C.,” Mr. Turley posted on social media. “Smith may try to go forward on the remaining counts. However, it is hard to see how the indictment holds together.”
But William Banks, founding director of the Institute for Security Policy and Law and Syracuse University, suggested the other charges against the former president will stand.
“The decision will not have tremendous significance in the Jan. 6 cases, including that of former President Trump, because in almost all cases there are other charges that have a felony status alongside the obstruction charge,” Mr. Banks said.
Friday’s ruling erased a conviction of 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 government argued that law was broad, encompassing any obstructive act and anything that qualifies as a proceeding.
A U.S. District Court 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 debated whether the word “otherwise” means the second part of the statute, modifies the first or whether it’s independent.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, said the law must be read narrowly.
“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,” he wrote in a ruling joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
The law was passed after the Enron scandal, when members of Congress were dismayed to realize that there was nothing illegal about ordering someone else to shred documents to hinder a criminal investigation.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing the dissent with Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, said the “otherwise” was indeed intended to sweep up broad conduct. She called it a “catchall” law.
“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 those who took part in the Jan. 6 attack will still face justice.
The Justice Department has brought charges against 1,427 people. There are 249 cases where someone was either already convicted or is still charged with violating the obstruction of an official proceeding.
In 52 of those cases the obstruction charge is the only felony for which they were convicted. Of those, 27 are still in prison.
• 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.