Several, including Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Samuel A. Alito Jr., expressed concern through a series of hypothetical scenarios regarding granting sweeping powers to prosecutors that they said would allow the government to target peaceful protesters , disruptors or someone who sets off a fire alarm. delay a vote in Congress.
“Are all these federal crimes punishable by 20 years in prison? » asked Gorsuch.
More than 350 People have been prosecuted under the law, which was passed after the revelation of massive fraud and document destruction during the collapse of energy giant Enron, and which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years. More than 100 people have been convicted under this law and received sentences well below the maximum.
The court’s decision has the potential to overturn these convictions and sentences and overturn the remaining charges against the other defendants. Three January 6 defendants have already had their sentences reduced pending a decision from the Supreme Court.
The court’s decision could also further delay Trump’s already stalled trial for allegedly trying to stay in power after his 2020 defeat. Two of the four charges he faces are based on obstruction law, and he could seek the dismissal of these charges if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the rioters.
Justice Clarence Thomas, who returned to court after an unexplained absence Monday, repeatedly asked whether the Justice Department had ever used the obstruction law against others. violent protesters, suggesting the government was engaging in selective prosecutions.
“There were numerous violent demonstrations which disrupted the proceedings. Has the government applied this provision to other protests in the past? » asked Thomas. Democratic lawmakers had urged Justice not to participate in the Jan. 6 case because of efforts by his wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, to overturn Biden’s victory.
Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar, defending the government, said she could not give an example in which others violently stormed a building to block an official proceeding, in part because “I am not aware of this circumstance occurring before January. 6.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor seemed to reinforce that point when she later said: “We have never had a situation before where there has been a situation like this with people trying to stop a proceeding with violence . So I’m not sure what the lack of history proves.
Much of Tuesday’s discussion focused on how to properly interpret the text of a law in the Sarbanes-Oxley law passed by Congress in 2002, after the Enron scandal. The meaning of the word “otherwise” emerged as key as the justices discussed how prosecutors could apply the law narrowly or broadly.
The law applies to anyone who “corruptly: (1) modifies, destroys, mutilates or conceals a record, document or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intention of damaging the integrity of the object or its availability for use in an official procedure; or (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or interferes with any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.
Prelogar told the judges that the second clause must be read as a “catch-all” which prohibits unanticipated methods to obstruct an official proceeding – such as occupying the Capitol building and forcing the suspension of the joint session of Congress certifying the election results. The word “differently” means “in a different way,” she said.
Only two justices – Elena Kagan and Sotomayor – appeared to fully embrace the Justice Department’s position. Kagan said Congress intentionally used broad language as a safety net for other potential types of obstruction.
Sotomayor agreed, suggesting it was a simple question: “I don’t see why this isn’t the safety net that Congress would have wanted, and this is the language they used.” »
The case was brought by Joseph W. Fischer, an off-duty Pennsylvania police officer who attended the Jan. 6 ceremony. Stop the Steal Rally. Fischer’s trial was on hold while he contests the decision to charge him with obstructing Congress — one of several counts he faces, including assaulting a federal officer in the line police outside the Capitol.
A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the charge, and he appealed to the Supreme Court.
In pleading the case, known as Fischer against the United States, attorney Jeffrey T. Green said the two sections of the law must be read together, and urged the court to reject the government’s broad interpretation of the law used to charge his client. The obstruction measure aims to preserve the availability of evidence, he argued, as well as to Congressional interest in protecting the integrity of an investigation or other official proceeding.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. appears to agree, suggesting that the second section of the law is defined by what precedes it and cannot be read alone. He referred Prelogar to a unanimous opinion released Friday by the court and written by Roberts. This decision, in a case involving workers’ rights and arbitration, reaffirmed the principle that more general “catch-all” terms are “controlled and defined by reference to the terms preceding them”.
“You can’t just add that and say, ‘look at it like it’s isolated,’ because it’s not,” Roberts told Prelogar, referring to the law’s broader use by the government.
Two other justices, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson, seemed interested in limiting how the government can use the law so that it applies only to evidence-related obstruction, but without automatically derailing hundreds of affairs of January 6.
Barrett asked Fischer’s lawyer if prosecutors could try to prove that his client actually interfered with the evidence by trying to stop the counting of electoral vote certificates at Vice President Mike’s office Cents.
What if, Barrett suggested, “the goal was to shut down the proceedings and therefore interfere with the evidence reaching the vice president.”
Green acknowledged that it was a “more specific” question, but insisted that Congress was only prohibiting the alteration of documents or other evidence, not just delaying their release.
Although Trump’s name was not mentioned once during the closing argument, the obstruction charges against the former president are based in part on allegations that he conspired with others to submit to Congress fake voter lists from key states and to trick lawmakers into rejecting legal ballots.
Even if the Supreme Court rules that the obstruction charge does not apply to the rioters’ actions, the special prosecutor handling Trump’s case told the high court that the charges against him should still stand against Trump.
Fourteen of the 15 judges overseeing cases related to January 6 in the DC Federal Courthouse ruled in favor of The government used the charge of obstruction, saying that rioters who sought to prevent Congress from certifying Biden’s victory were “otherwise” obstructing that process. The exception was U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols, a Trump nominee, who ruled for Fischer and said the word “otherwise” refers only to other efforts to falsify or destroy records or documents .
A divided DC Circuit overturned that decision, which Judge Florence Pan – Biden nominee — This provision was too narrow and in contradiction with the text of the statute. “We cannot assume, and we think it is unlikely, that Congress used expansive language to address such narrow concerns,” she wrote, joined in part by Justice Justin Walker, appointed by Trump.
Justice Gregory Katsas — also a Trump appointee — disagreed, writing that a broad reading of the statute would endanger law-abiding activities such as lobbying and protests.
Several justices echoed those concerns and noted Katsas’ reasoning Tuesday morning. Alito asked Prelogar what would happen if five people stood up ornate, felted courtroom and shouted either that the Jan. 6 defendants were insurrectionists who should go to prison or that they were patriots and should be released, delaying the closing argument by five minutes.
Would that constitute a violation of the obstruction law, Alito asked.
The Solicitor General told Alito that his hypothesis was fundamentally different from what happened at the Capitol on January 6. A more similar scenario, she said, would be if protesters “stormed into the courtroom, overwhelmed the Supreme Court police and forced the justices and other participants to flee for their own sake.” security.”
Alito replied: “Absolutely. What happened on January 6 was very, very serious. I don’t equate it with that. But we must determine what the limits of this law are according to your interpretation.
Spencer S. Hsu, Rachel Weiner and Tobi Raji contributed to this report.
washingtonpost
