WASHINGTON — Supreme Court justices on Tuesday raised concerns about the Justice Department’s use of an obstruction law to charge those involved in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol,
The case that could be related to former President Donald Trump’s electoral interference process.
The judges heard an appeal filed by defendant Joseph Fischer, a former police officer seeking to dismiss a charge accusing him of obstructing an official process, namely the congressional certification of Joe Biden’s electoral victory, which was disrupted by a crowd of supporters of Trump. .
O law in question criminalizes efforts to obstruct, influence, or impede any official process. Conviction can result in a prison sentence of up to 20 years.
The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has in the past been skeptical of prosecutors when they assert broad applications of criminal provisions.
Some justices expressed similar sentiments during Tuesday’s arguments, asking whether the statute in question could be used to prosecute peaceful protesters, including people who have sometimes disrupted Supreme Court proceedings.
“Would a demonstration that disrupts a trial or access to a federal court qualify?” asked conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch. “Would a questioner in today’s hearing qualify, or in the State of the Union address? Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify for 20 years in federal prison?”
Justice Samuel Alito, another conservative, asked similar questions during a long conversation with Attorney General Elizabeth Prelogar, in which he noted that people who protested at the Supreme Court were not charged under the law.
“I think that’s a fundamentally different stance than if they had stormed this court, stormed the Supreme Court Police, demanded that the judges and other attendees flee for their safety,” Prelogar said.
“What happened on January 6th was very, very serious and I’m not comparing this to that,” Alito responded. “But we need to figure out what the limits of this statute are under your interpretation.”
Trump himself faces charges of violating the same law, as well as conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. These are among the four charges he faces in his election interference case in Washington, in addition to the bribery case currently underway in New York.
Tuesday’s hearing comes just a week before the Supreme Court hears Trump’s attempt to dismiss his election interference charges based on a presidential immunity claim. Justice Clarence Thomas was present for arguments after an unexplained absence on Monday.
Fischer and Trump say the obstruction law does not apply to their alleged conduct, meaning the charges should be dropped.
Fischer faces seven criminal charges, only one of which is the focus of the Supreme Court case. He also faces charges of assaulting a police officer and entering a restricted building, among others.
Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned why the Justice Department needed to charge Fischer using the obstruction law, noting that he faces the other six charges.
“Why aren’t these six counts good enough?” he asked.
Similarly, Justice Clarence Thomas, whose wife Ginni Thomas is a conservative activist who supported Trump’s effort to contest the election results, asked whether prosecutors have ever used the statute in response to “violent protests” that have disrupted proceedings in the past. .
“I can’t give an example of how to apply it in a situation where people violently invaded a building to impede an official process,” Prelogar said.
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor appeared to support Prelogar on this point.
“We’ve never had a situation before … with people trying to violently impede a process. So I’m not sure what the lack of history proves,” she said.
The provision was enacted in 2002 as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, passed in the wake of the Enron accounting scandal.
On January 6th, say prosecutors, Fischer joined the mob storming the Capitol from the east side. “Demand!” he yelled repeatedly, before charging toward a police line while yelling, “Motherf—–s!” says the government.
He and other protesters fell to the ground. After other rioters denounced him, video released as evidence in other Jan. 6 trials shows that he tried to appeal to officers protecting the Capitol, telling them that he, too, was an officer.
Fischer’s lawyers say the law should be limited to circumstances involving tampering with physical evidence, which is what they argue the law is intended to address.
A ruling in Fischer’s favor could benefit Trump, although that is not guaranteed. Prosecutors in Trump’s case said that even if Fischer wins, Trump’s conduct would still be covered by a narrower interpretation of the statute.
This story originally appeared on NBCNews.com read the full story
