In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jan. 6 defendant and former Pennsylvania police officer Joseph Fischer, significantly affecting the Justice Department’s approach to prosecuting those involved in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.
The 6-3 decision narrows the scope of applying an obstruction charge to hundreds of riot defendants charged for their conduct on Jan. 6. The case revolved around whether Section 1512(c)(2) could be applied to hundreds of defendants, including Fischer and former President Donald Trump, who faced charges of corruptly obstructing an official proceeding. The decision was mixed along ideological lines, with liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joining the conservative majority and conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining the liberal bloc.
The court’s decision ruled against the Biden administration’s interpretation of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act’s provision. This provision, initially aimed at addressing corporate fraud, was deemed by the court to be too broad when applied to Fischer’s actions during the Capitol riot. The majority of justices concluded that the law should not be used as a broad tool for prosecuting a wide range of behaviors unrelated to its original intent.
Fischer’s legal strategy focused on the phrase “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding,” which is found in the statute. His attorney, Jeffrey Green, argued that the law’s primary intent was to address evidence tampering, not to prosecute actions such as Fischer’s. The court’s majority agreed, with Justice Samuel Alito being a major voice of skepticism during oral arguments about the government’s broad reading of the statute.
