On Tuesday, the Supreme Court is set to hear Fischer v. United States, a case that holds significant implications for hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants and former President Donald Trump’s prosecution by special counsel Jack Smith.
The case revolves around the interpretation of an obstruction statute, Section 1512(c)(2), which imposes penalties for obstructing official proceedings. Joseph Fischer, a defendant who entered the Capitol on Jan. 6, argues that his prosecution under this law for obstructing Congress’ certification of the 2020 election constitutes an unprecedented expansion of the statute.
Fischer contends that the law, originally intended to target evidence tampering in corporate settings, has been misapplied in his case and others related to the Capitol breach. He argues that his actions did not aim to affect the integrity or availability of evidence, as traditionally understood under the statute.
Should the Supreme Court side with Fischer, it could impact not only his case but also the prosecution of over 353 Jan. 6 defendants charged with similar offenses by the Department of Justice.
Already, some defendants have been granted early release pending the outcome of the ruling, highlighting the significance of the case.
While the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals previously upheld the government’s interpretation of the statute, Judge Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee, dissented, arguing that it was overly broad and unconstitutional in many applications.
The outcome of this case could also affect Trump’s legal battle, as two of the charges against him in the election interference case are based on the same obstruction statute. However, Smith maintains that the charges against Trump would stand regardless of the Supreme Court’s ruling on the statute’s interpretation.
With oral arguments scheduled for April 25 to consider Trump’s claim of presidential immunity, the Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer v. United States holds significant implications for both ongoing prosecutions and the broader understanding of obstruction laws.
