The United States Supreme Court is set to decide Fisher v. United States, a case in which January 6 Capitol riot defendant Joseph W. Fisher is challenging a federal felony charge of obstructing an official proceeding.
Justices heard oral arguments in the case in mid-April, and are likely to rule by the end of June.Joe Biden's Department of Justice has used the felony charge against over 300 individuals who allegedly participated in the 2021 riot in Washington, D.C. Additionally, the obstruction charge forms the core of DOJ special counsel Jack Smith's January 6 prosecution against former President Donald Trump.
The statute, found in 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2), reads:"Whoever corruptly-(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both."This provision is what Biden's DOJ used to file enhanced felony charges against the January 6 defendants and former President Trump after congressional proceedings were delayed for a few hours on January 6, 2021.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh challenged the DOJ on why the obstruction charges were needed, pointing out that Fisher faced six other charges for his actions on January 6, 2021 - including assaulting a U.S. Capitol Police officer.
"Would a sit-in that disrupts a trial or access to a federal courthouse qualify?" the Justice asked before probing further: "Would a heckler in today's audience qualify, or at the State of the Union address? Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify for 20 years in federal prison?" IMPLICATIONS FOR TRUMP. The Supreme Court's ruling could have far-reaching implications beyond the over 300 individuals charged under Biden's DOJ's use of the enhanced obstruction provision.
If the Justices rule against using Sarbanes-Oxley in the Jan 6 prosecutions, it would also invalidate two of the four felony charges brought by DOJ special counsel Jack Smith in the Washington, D.C.-based prosecution of former President Trump.
If the Court rules in favor of broad legal protections for current and former U.S. presidents, it could result in most of the state and federal charges against him - in at least three current prosecutions - being dismissed.
No comments:
Post a Comment