The Supreme Court, this Tuesday, was divided over charges against former Pennsylvania police officer, Joseph Fischer, who was present at the U.S. Capitol during the January 6, 2021, attacks. Fischer argued that the law he was in violation of, designed to bar obstruction of an official proceeding, was primarily applicable to evidence tampering within a congressional inquiry, or investigation, and his conduct did not fall within this criterion. However, consensus on this interpretation was not achieved among the justices. SCOTUSblog reported on this case.
The Supreme Court’s decision on this matter carries potential implications for more than 300 other defendants involved in the January 6 case. Moreover, it could influence the Special Counsel Jack Smith’s proceedings against the former President Donald Trump in a federal court in Washington, D.C.
Fischer, arrested in 2021 for assaulting police officers, maintains that he was inside the Capitol for only a few minutes and was pushed into the police line by the crowd. He was charged further with violating a federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), enacted as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act after the Enron Scandal, which makes it a crime to obstruct, influence, or impede any official proceeding.
The charge under Section 1512(c)(2) was dismissed by U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, only to be overruled and reinstated by a federal appeals court. The case has now reached the Supreme Court. Fischer’s representative argued that, until the January 6 prosecutions, no charges had been brought under Section 1512(c)(2) for anything other than evidence tampering.
Arguing on behalf of the Department of Justice, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar opposed Fischer’s interpretation of Section 1512(c)(2) as limited to evidence tampering, claiming it lacked textual basis in the statute. Justice Elena Kagan also contested Fischer’s interpretation, noting the ambiguous wording of the statute. In contrast, Chief Justice John Roberts suggested a different interpretation of the statute, referring to the precedent set by Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries.
The court discussion revealed some justices’ concerns about the potential breadth of the statute under the government’s interpretation, while others seemed to side with the defendant’s or the government’s interpretation. Justice Sonia Sotomayor reflected on the unprecedented nature of the January 6 attacks, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned the necessity of invoking Section 1512(c)(2) at all in the light of six other indictments against Fischer.
The decision on the case, which may set a significant precedent for future cases, is anticipated by summer.
This summary is based on an article originally published at Howe on the Court.