The U.S. Supreme Court expressed concern on Tuesday over the use of an obstruction statute to charge hundreds of defendants involved in the January 6 Capitol riot. This includes former President Donald Trump, who faces two of four charges related to this statute. The justices are leaning towards a position that could jeopardize these prosecutions.
The case involves defendant Joseph Fischer and centers on whether the obstruction statute, passed under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002, could be used to prosecute general instances of obstruction or if it was intended for narrower use such as evidence tampering or document destruction.
If the Supreme Court decides that the obstruction statute was used too broadly, it could impact the case against Trump, as well as the remaining conspiracy statutes used in his indictment.
The U.S. Solicitor General, Elizabeth Prelogar, argued for the Justice Department, stating that the obstruction law was designed to outlaw all obstruction. However, Fischer’s lawyer, Jeffrey Green, argued that the law should be defined more narrowly.
Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, and Chief Justice John Roberts questioned Prelogar’s interpretation of the law, suggesting it was overly expansive. They raised questions about what constitutes obstruction, including whether delaying an official proceeding would count as obstruction and how significant the delay would need to be.
Prelogar argued that even peaceful protests could technically violate the law, though the Justice Department was unlikely to prosecute minor disturbances. This led to further questions from the justices about defining minor disturbances.
The enforcement history of the obstruction statute was also a point of concern, with Prelogar noting that the Justice Department had previously prosecuted cases of interfering with a grand jury investigation and federal court proceedings.
Discover more from News Facts Network
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
