Judges decide the extent of the obstruction. Allegation at the heart of Trump’s January 6 case

The Supreme Court on Wednesday decided to answer a question at the heart of the federal election interference case against former President Donald J. Trump and hundreds of prosecutions stemming from the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol: Can the government charge suspects in those cases under a federal law making it a crime to corruptly obstruct an official congressional proceeding?

The decision to hear the case will complicate and perhaps even delay the start of Mr Trump’s trial, now set to take place in Washington in March. The Supreme Court’s final ruling, which may not come until June, is likely to address the viability of two of the key charges against Mr. Trump and could undermine efforts by the special counsel, Jack Smith, to hold the former president accountable for the can seriously limit violence. that his supporters committed in the Capitol.

The court’s final decision could also invalidate convictions already handed down against dozens of Mr. Trump’s followers who took part in the attack. That would be a devastating blow to the government’s prosecution of the January 6 cases.

The case the court agreed to involves Joseph Fischer, who has been indicted on seven charges for his role in the attack on the Capitol. Prosecutors say he attacked police as Congress met to certify the results of the 2020 election. Like hundreds of other rioters whose actions disrupted the certification proceedings at the Capitol, Mr. Fischer was charged with the obstruction count, formally known as 18 USC 1512.

Mr. Fischer requested dismissal of part of the charges filed under the federal law, which was passed as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002a statute primarily aimed at white-collar crime.

Judge Carl J. Nichols of the Federal District Court in Washington granted Mr. Fischer’s motion, saying the law required defendants “to take some action with respect to a document, record, or other subject matter” — a provision he could not agree to. found in Mr Fischer’s case. Fischer’s appearance at the Capitol on January 6.

A divided three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed Judge Nichols’ decision, ruling that the law “applies to all forms of corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding.” Three Jan. 6 defendants, including Mr. Fischer, ultimately asked the Supreme Court to decide whether the law was properly applied to the attack on the Capitol.

Obstruction charges were never an easy resolution in the cases arising from the storming of the Capitol. When the law was passed in the early 2000s, the law aimed to curb corporate malfeasance by banning things like destroying documents or tampering with evidence.

Defense attorneys representing the Jan. 6 rioters argued that federal prosecutors improperly expanded their scope to cover the violence that erupted at the Capitol and interfered with a proceeding in which lawmakers had met to determine the outcome of the elections for 2020.

The attorneys also objected to the use of the charge against people who stormed the Capitol, saying many did not act “corruptly” as the law requires because they believed they were protesting a stolen election.

“The statute has been used to over-criminalize the January 6 cases,” said Norm Pattis, attorney for Jake Lang, who also appealed his obstruction conviction to the Supreme Court. “Congress never intended it that way.”

Mr. Pattis said the Supreme Court’s review was “significant” in hundreds of criminal cases arising from the Capitol riot and was also “another reason the cases against Donald Trump should be postponed in 2024.”

Two of the four charges in the federal election interference indictment Trump faces are based on the obstruction charge. Mr. Trump has been charged with personally obstructing the certification process at the Capitol on Jan. 6. He also faces a separate charge of conspiring with others to obstruct the proceedings.

If the Supreme Court rules that the law does not apply to the mob attack on the Capitol, it could cripple Mr. Smith’s plans to blame the violence that occurred on Jan. 6 on Mr. Trump.

Recent court papers in the election case have strongly suggested that prosecutors intended to use the obstruction charge as a way to show the jury graphic videos of the attack on the Capitol and perhaps even introduce testimony from rioters who claim they had stormed the building on behalf of Mr Trump. .