(WASHINGTON) – The Supreme Court on Tuesday is considering the first of two cases that could affect former President Donald Trump’s criminal case for his efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat. Hundreds of charges stemming from the Capitol riot are also facing are under discussion. stake.
Ministers are hearing arguments on the charge of obstructing an official process. That charge, stemming from a law passed in the wake of the Enron financial scandal more than two decades ago, was brought against 330 people, according to the Justice Department. The court will consider whether it can be used against those who disrupted Congress’ certification of Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential election victory over Trump.
The former president and presumptive candidate for the Republican nomination in 2024 faces two charges in the case brought by special prosecutor Jack Smith in Washington, which could be overturned with a favorable ruling from the country’s highest court. Next week, the justices will hear arguments over whether Trump has “absolute immunity” from prosecution in the case, a proposal that has so far been rejected by two lower courts.
The first former US president indicted, Trump is on trial on charges of hiding money in New York and has also been accused of election interference in Georgia and misuse of confidential documents in Florida.
See more information: Trump’s Hush-Money Trial Begins with a Defiant Defendant, a Rigorous Schedule and Outside Supporters
In Tuesday’s case, the court is hearing an appeal from Joseph Fischer, a former Pennsylvania police officer who was indicted on seven counts, including obstruction, for his actions on Jan. 6, 2021, when a crowd of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol in an attempt to prevent Biden, a Democrat, from taking the White House. Fischer’s lawyers argue that the indictment does not cover his conduct.
The obstruction charge, which carries up to 20 years in prison, is among the most frequently used criminal charges in the massive federal prosecution that followed the deadly insurrection.
Approximately 170 January 6 defendants were convicted of obstructing or conspiring to obstruct the January 6 joint session of Congress, including the leaders of two far-right extremist groups, the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. Several defendants had their sentences postponed until after the judges’ decision on the matter.
Some protesters have even been granted early release from prison while their appeal is pending due to concerns that they could end up serving time longer than they should if the Supreme Court rules against the Justice Department. That includes Kevin Seefried, a Delaware man who threatened a black police officer with a flagpole attached to a Confederate battle flag as he stormed the Capitol. Seefried was sentenced last year to three years in prison, but a judge recently ordered that he be released a year after serving his prison sentence, pending the Supreme Court’s decision.
The high court case centers on the question of whether the anti-filibuster provision of a law that was enacted in 2002 in response to the financial scandal that brought down Enron Corp. can be used against the defendants of January 6th.
Fischer’s lawyers argue that the provision was intended to fill a loophole in criminal law and discourage the destruction of records in response to an investigation. Until the Capitol riot, they told the court, all criminal cases using the provision involved allegations of destruction or otherwise manipulation of records.
But the administration says the other side is reading the law too narrowly, arguing that it serves “as a catch-all offense designed to ensure complete coverage of all forms of corrupt obstruction of an official process,” including “alleged Fischer’s conduct in joining a violent riot to disrupt the joint session of Congress certifying the results of the presidential election.”
Smith separately argued in the immunity case that the obstruction charges against Trump are valid regardless of the outcome of Fischer’s case.
The majority of lower court judges who weighed in allowed the charge to stand. Among them, Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich wrote that “statutes often go beyond the primary evil that animates them.”
But U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, another Trump appointee, dismissed the charge against Fischer and two other defendants, writing that prosecutors went too far. A divided federal appeals court panel in Washington reinstated the charge before the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case.
While not important to the Supreme Court case, the two sides present starkly different accounts of Fischer’s actions on January 6. Fischer’s lawyers say he was “not part of the mob” that forced lawmakers to flee the House and Senate chambers, noting that he entered the Capitol after Congress recessed. The weight of the crowd pushed Fischer into a line of police officers inside, they said in a court filing.
Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio, Lauren Boebert of Colorado, Matt Gaetz of Florida and Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia are among 23 Republican members of Congress who say the administration’s use of the obstruction charge “presents an intolerable risk of politicized processes. Only a clear rebuke from this Court will end the madness.”
The Justice Department says Fischer can be heard in a video shouting “Attack!” before running through a crowd and “crashing into the police line”. Prosecutors also cite text messages sent by Fischer before Jan. 6 saying things could turn violent and social media posts after the riot in which he wrote, “we pushed the police back about 25 feet.” .
More than 1,350 people have been charged with federal crimes in connection with the Capitol riots. Approximately 1,000 of them pleaded guilty or were convicted by a jury or judge after a trial.
___
Associated Press writers Alanna Durkin Richer in Washington and Michael Kunzelman in Silver Spring, Maryland, contributed to this report.
This story originally appeared on Time.com read the full story
