The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Joseph Fischer, a participant in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, narrowing the interpretation of a federal obstruction statute used in the prosecution of the rioters.
In a significant decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Joseph Fischer, a participant in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, overturning his conviction for a federal obstruction crime. The court held that the lower court interpretation of the obstruction statute was too broad, narrowing the scope of the law in the context of the Capitol riot prosecution.
The case stems from a lawsuit filed by Fischer, who argued that the statute should not apply to his actions of entering the Capitol because he did not attempt to alter, destroy, or conceal evidence or documents. The Justice Department, however, maintained that Fischer's actions qualified as obstruction because he attempted to stop the certification of the 2020 election.
Supreme Court Upholds Fischer, Limits Obstruction Statute in Jan. 6 Case
The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision led by Chief Justice John Roberts, disagreed with the government's interpretation, stating that the obstruction statute must be limited to cases where evidence or documents are specifically targeted for impairment or destruction.
"Although the Government's all-encompassing interpretation may be literally permissible, it defies the most plausible understanding" of the statute, Roberts wrote in the opinion of the court.
Supreme Court Upholds Fischer, Limits Obstruction Statute in Jan. 6 Case
Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in her concurring opinion, emphasized that the court's task is to determine the scope of the statute, not to make judgments about the gravity of Fischer's actions.
"This Court's task is to determine what conduct is proscribed by the criminal statute that has been invoked as the basis for the obstruction charge at issue here," Jackson wrote.
Supreme Court Upholds Fischer, Limits Obstruction Statute in Jan. 6 Case
Associate Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissented, arguing that Congress had given the Executive Branch broad discretion in interpreting the statute.
"There is no getting around it: Section 1512(c)(2) is an expansive statute," Barrett wrote. "Yet Congress, not this Court, weighs 'pros and cons of whether a statute should sweep broadly or narrowly.'"
Supreme Court Upholds Fischer, Limits Obstruction Statute in Jan. 6 Case
The Supreme Court's decision sends the case back to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to reassess Fischer's conviction in light of the narrower interpretation of the obstruction statute.
The ruling has implications for other Jan. 6 defendants facing obstruction charges, as the Justice Department must now decide whether to drop or pursue these charges.
Supreme Court Upholds Fischer, Limits Obstruction Statute in Jan. 6 Case
Attorney General Merrick Garland expressed disappointment over the ruling but emphasized that it will not significantly impact the prosecution of other Jan. 6 defendants.
"There are no cases in which the Department charged a January 6 defendant only with the offense at issue in Fischer," Garland said. "For the cases affected by today’s decision, the Department will take appropriate steps to comply with the Court’s ruling."
The Supreme Court's ruling highlights the complexities of applying general criminal statutes to the specific events of the Jan. 6 riot and the ongoing legal challenges surrounding the prosecution of the Capitol attackers.
