WASHINGTON (CN) — The Supreme Court agreed on Wednesday to review a linchpin of Capitol riot convictions, including the prosecution of the former president.
Three men were charged with obstructing an official proceeding on Jan. 6, 2021, when a violent mob swarmed the Capitol in hopes of halting the certification of the 2020 election results. At the heart of the law and the challenge before the Supreme Court is the interpretation of “corruptly.”
Joseph Fischer attended Donald Trump’s Stop the Steal rally at the Ellipse on Jan. 6. Initially, Fischer says, he didn't march to the Capitol following the rally and returned home instead. However, news of the growing demonstration led Fischer back to Washington, where he entered the Capitol and fought with a police officer.
The Justice Department charged Fischer with obstructing or interfering with a law enforcement officer, assaulting a federal officer, entering a restricted area, engaging in disorderly conduct and picketing in the Capitol building.
Another Capitol riot defendant, Garret Miller, challenged his obstruction of an official proceeding charge. A lower court said Miller did not personally take action to corruptly obstruct, impede or influence Congress’ certification of the electoral vote and dismissed the charge.
Fischer’s obstruction count was similarly dismissed.
The D.C. Circuit consolidated the government’s appeals against removing this charge and reversed. The appeals court found that corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding is far broader than the direct understanding implemented by the lower court.
At the Supreme Court, Fischer and other rioters argued the D.C. Circuit’s reading was too broad and unconstitutional. Fischer warned the justices that the appeals court interpretation could extend to advocacy, lobbying and protests.
“These concerns are not speculative,” wrote Frederick Ulrich, a federal public defender representing Fischer.
“Already, the broad scope of the D.C. Circuit’s interpretation has yielded calls for its use in other contexts. Senator Cotton has begun probing why Justice Department officials have not launched criminal investigations under Section 1512(c)(2) for those protesting gun violence at the Tennessee Capitol and those protesting Representative Jordan’s House Judiciary Committee hearing in New York City.”
The government argued that the rioters' appeal to the justices came too early. The appeals court reversal overturned only the lower court’s outright dismissal of the charge. Fischer and other rioters contest the government’s assertions concerning their corrupt behavior, however, those issues will be settled in further proceedings on remand.
In the government’s view, the court is jumping into the question too early, as it could be brought after the government has had a chance to prove Fischer and other rioters are guilty of corruptly obstructing the proceeding.
“At bottom, their contention is that Section 1512(c)(2) does not prohibit what they did on January 6, and that contention is, at best, premature,” U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar wrote. “If petitioners’ scope-of-the-statute question remains live after further proceedings on remand, petitioners could raise that question, along with any other issues, in a single petition following the entry of final judgment.”
How the high court comes down on the question will impact hundreds of charges against Capitol rioters. The charge is also one of four against Trump for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
Along with Fischer’s appeal, the justices agreed to hear four other cases: inmate Danny Lee’s fight for a new hearing; a bribery conviction against an Indiana town mayor; the value of assets under the federal estate tax; and a jeweler's malicious prosecution claim.
Follow @KelseyReichmann
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
