In a closely watched decision stemming from the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, the US Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the government must prove a defendant impaired or attempted to impair the availability or integrity of evidence to be convicted under a key obstruction statute. The ruling in Fischer v. United States centered on the interpretation of Section 1512(c)(2) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
On January 6, 2021, supporters of then-President Donald Trump gathered outside the US Capitol while Congress convened to certify the 2020 Presidential election results. Amid escalating tensions, some protesters breached the Capitol, causing significant delays in the certification process and raising concerns about the security of democratic processes in the United States.
Joseph Fischer was charged under Section 1512(c)(2) which prohibits anyone from “otherwise obstructing, influencing, or impeding any official proceeding, or attempting to do so.” Fischer argued the statute only covered actions aimed at evidence impairment, not broader obstructive conduct. The Supreme Court was asked to clarify the statute’s scope.
The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, narrowed the interpretation of Section 1512(c)(2). The court emphasized its linkage to the preceding subsection, which lists specific criminal actions such as altering or destroying records. Utilizing the principles of noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis, the court concluded that the broad term “otherwise” should be interpreted in light of the specific acts listed in 1512(c)(1). “Under these principles, the ‘otherwise’ provision of §1512(c)(2) is limited by the list of specific criminal violations that precede it in (c)(1),” said the Court’s opinion.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, argued that the majority’s interpretation unduly narrows the statute. Barrett stated, “By textually narrowing [subsection 1512(c)(2)], the Court has failed to respect the prerogatives of the political branches.”
The decision vacates an earlier ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which had a broader interpretation of the statute. This ruling is expected to influence future prosecutions related to obstruction of justice, especially those involving political uprisings.
For further details, you can read about the decision on JURIST.