The Supreme Court's recent decision on a law related to obstructing an official proceeding could have a profound impact on the federal prosecution of former President Donald Trump, according to legal analysts.
The Washington Times reported that the Court ruled 6-3 that the statute criminalizing obstruction of an official proceeding, enacted after the Enron scandal, does not apply to the actions of the Jan. 6 Capitol rioters.
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court decided that the law created to criminalize actions obstructing official proceedings cannot be used against the rioters who stormed the Capitol on January 6.
This law, originally established in response to the corporate malfeasance surrounding Enron, was deemed inapplicable to the participants who interrupted the Congressional certification of the Electoral College.
The decision has widespread implications, particularly for the cases brought forward by Special Counsel Jack Smith against former President Donald Trump. Smith has been pursuing charges against Trump, asserting that he attempted to undermine the 2020 election results, with two charges based on the now-disputed obstruction law.
Legal experts pointed out that this ruling could dismantle the prosecution's case against Trump. Professor Theodore Cooperstein elaborated, "There is a very real possibility that if it is not dismissed, it would have to be replead or reindicted."
The ruling also directly affected Joseph Fischer, a former police officer involved in the Jan. 6 events.
Fischer initially faced seven counts, with the central charge being Title 18, Section 1512(c). His conviction was based on this statute but has now been invalidated by the ruling.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, emphasized the need for a narrow reading of the law. "If Congress had wanted to authorize such penalties for any conduct that delays or influences a proceeding in any way, it would have said so," he stated.
In dissent, Justice Amy Coney Barrett argued the statute was meant to be broad.
"There is no getting around it: Section 1512(c)(2) is an expansive statute," she wrote. "Yet Congress, not this Court, weighs the 'pros and cons of whether a statute should sweep broadly or narrowly.'"
Attorney General Merrick Garland expressed disappointment in the ruling, but he remains steadfast in his commitment to pursue justice for those involved in the Jan. 6 attack. "[I am] disappointed [in the ruling but vow that] those who took part in the Jan. 6 attack will still face justice," Garland said.
Since January 6, the Department of Justice has charged 1,427 people in connection with the events, with 249 cases related to obstructing an official proceeding. In 52 instances, this charge was the sole felony, leaving 27 of those individuals currently incarcerated.
William Banks, another legal analyst, noted that the decision would not broadly affect other Jan. 6 cases involving former President Trump. "The decision will not have tremendous significance in the Jan. 6 cases, including that of former President Trump, because in almost all instances, there are other charges that have a felony status alongside the obstruction charge," he explained.
Jonathan Turley commented on how the ruling could derail Smith’s efforts. "For Trump, this rips the wings off the plane that Jack Smith has been trying to take off in D.C. Smith may try to go forward on the remaining counts.… However, it is hard to see how the indictment holds together."
The complexity of the case is further highlighted by the fact that a U.S. District Court judge initially dismissed the obstruction charge against Fischer, only for the circuit court to later reverse this decision. This back-and-forth underscores the contentious nature of applying the Enron-era law to Jan. 6 participants.
Chief Justice Roberts’s emphasis on a narrow interpretation reflects a cautious approach toward expanding prosecutorial reach without clear legislative intent. Conversely, Justice Barrett’s dissent highlights a contrasting judicial philosophy favoring broad statutory applicability.
The Supreme Court’s ruling signals potential challenges for the prosecution in Jack Smith’s case against Trump.
Though some charges may still stand, the invalidation of the obstruction statute could necessitate a new legal strategy. With continued commitment from the Department of Justice, the pursuit of justice for the events of January 6 remains an ongoing effort amidst the complex and evolving legal landscape.
