Supreme Court rules Jan. 6 rioter contests obstruction charge

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Friday in favor of a former police officer who is trying to dismiss an obstruction charge for joining the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.

The judges in a 6-3 vote on non-ideological lines, handed a victory to defendant Joseph Fischer, who is among hundreds of January 6 defendants – including former President Donald Trump – who have been accused of obstructing an official process over the effort to stop the certification of the Congress of President Joe Biden’s electoral victory.

The court concluded that the law, enacted in 2002 as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act following the Enron accounting scandal, was only intended to be applied in limited circumstances involving tampering with physical evidence.

The court sent the case back to the lower courts for further proceedings on whether the Justice Department could still prosecute Fischer under the new interpretation of the law.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that the government’s view of the law’s scope “defies the most plausible understanding” of the statute in question18 US Code 1512. The provision provides for a prison sentence of up to 20 years.

To prove a violation, prosecutors must demonstrate that the defendant “impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects or… other things used in the proceeding,” he added.

Roberts was joined by four other conservatives and one liberal – Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson – in the majority. The other two liberal justices joined conservative Amy Coney Barrett in dissent.

Barrett wrote that because no one disputes that the joint session of Congress to certify the election results was an official procedure, the question of whether Fischer can be prosecuted “appears open and shut.”

Most, she added, “simply cannot believe that Congress meant what it said” when writing a broad statute intended to cover many different conducts. She wrote that the court “did not respect the prerogatives of the political branches” in ruling against the prosecutors.

The decision may not affect Trump’s case. Prosecutors said that even if Fischer wins, Trump’s conduct would still fall under a narrower interpretation of the statute.

Fischer faces seven criminal charges, only one of which was the focus of the Supreme Court case. Even if the obstruction charge is dismissed, the other charges, including assault on a police officer and entering a restricted building, will remain in effect.

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.

In his election interference case, Trump faces four charges, including one count of obstructing an official process and one count of conspiracy to do so.

In a separate case, the Supreme Court is considering Trump’s claim of presidential immunity in the election interference case, which will also affect whether all charges remain in place before trial.

On January 6, 2021, promoters said, 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, as video released as evidence in other Jan. 6 trials shows, he tried to appeal to the officers protecting the Capitol, telling them he was an officer, too.

Fischer previously served as a police officer in North Cornwall Township, Pennsylvania. (Another man named Joseph Fisher, who was also a police officer, was recently sentenced to 20 months in prison for his own role on January 6.)

While there are 247 cases of the more than 1,400 cases from Jan. 6 that may be affected by Fischer, there are only 52 cases where it is the only crime, and only 27 of those defendants are still serving time. Most recently, the Jan. 6 defendant, Benjamin Martin, was convicted Wednesday of obstruction of an official proceeding, but was also convicted of felony civil disorder and a misdemeanor.

Recently, judges have been taking Fischer’s pending decision into account in their sentencing decisions. If a defendant were convicted of another crime, such as assaulting a police officer, he has gone on record as saying that he would have reached the same decision regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Fischer case.