Approximately 249 cases involving obstruction charges pending to be impacted
Fischer's case sent back for further proceedings in lower courts
Former officer Joseph Fischer's obstruction charge affected by ruling
Justice Department taking steps to shore up case with evidence of electoral vote boxes removal
Sarbanes-Oxley Act applied only to limited circumstances of evidence tampering, not broader situations
Supreme Court narrows scope of law used to prosecute Capitol rioters
In a significant ruling on Friday, the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of a law that has been used to prosecute hundreds of individuals involved in the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot. The decision came in response to an appeal by former police officer Joseph Fischer, who was seeking to overturn his obstruction charge for participating in the event.
The court determined that the law enacted as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 only applies to more limited circumstances involving forms of evidence tampering and not the broader array of situations that prosecutors had claimed it covered. The ruling sent Fischer's case back to lower courts for further proceedings on whether the Justice Department could still prosecute him under the new interpretation.
Fischer, who previously served in North Cornwall Township, Pennsylvania, was among hundreds of individuals charged with obstructing an official proceeding over efforts to prevent Congress from certifying President Joe Biden's election victory. The ruling is expected to impact approximately 249 cases involving obstruction charges that are currently pending.
The Supreme Court's decision did not address former President Donald Trump's obstruction charges specifically, but it acknowledged the possibility that creating false evidence could violate the obstruction statute. Legal experts believe this ruling may only weaken Trump's charges and not dismiss them entirely.
The Justice Department has taken steps to shore up its case by showing evidence of electoral vote boxes being removed from the Senate floor. The department argued that these actions impeded the official proceeding, but the Supreme Court's decision casts doubt on this interpretation of the law.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a former police officer, Joseph Fischer, who is seeking to throw out an obstruction charge for joining the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.
The court determined that the law enacted in 2002 as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was only intended to apply to more limited circumstances involving forms of evidence tampering, not the broader array of situations that prosecutors had claimed it covered.
Fischer previously served as a police officer in North Cornwall Township, Pennsylvania.
The court sent the case back to lower courts for further proceedings on whether the Justice Department could still prosecute Fischer under the new interpretation of the law.
Accuracy
Former President Donald Trump was charged with obstruction for attempting to organize and send a slate of fake electors to Congress.
The Supreme Court limited the power of prosecutors to pursue obstruction charges against those who rioted at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Two Trump nominees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, joined the majority in the decision.
The ruling narrowed a law that could have added years onto the sentences of hundreds of defendants.
Former President Donald Trump was charged with obstruction for attempting to organize and send a slate of fake electors to Congress.
The Supreme Court’s opinion did not address Trump’s charges specifically but acknowledged the possibility that creating false evidence could violate the obstruction statute.
Trump celebrated the decision as a ‘BIG WIN!’ but legal experts believe it may only weaken his obstruction charges, not dismiss them entirely.
Approximately 249 cases involving obstruction charges are pending, and in every case, the defendant faces other charges. About 52 people were convicted and sentenced with the obstruction charge as their only felony.
The Justice Department has taken steps to shore up the obstruction charges by showing evidence of electoral vote boxes being removed from the Senate floor.
Accuracy
The ruling narrowed a law that could have added years onto the sentences of hundreds of defendants.
Former President Donald Trump was charged with obstruction for attempting to organize and send a slate of fake electors to Congress.
The Supreme Court ruled in Fischer v. United States that the January 6 rioters did not obstruct or impede the congressional proceeding to certify the election despite breaching Capitol barricades, assaulting police officers, breaking doors and windows, and forcing members of Congress to flee.
The Court’s interpretation that Subsection 2 of the statute only applies to obstruction that impairs the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in the proceeding is not supported by the plain text and creates ambiguity where none exists.
Congress intended for violent assaults on its own proceedings to be prohibited under this statute.
Accuracy
The federal obstruction-of-justice statute at issue in Fischer (18 U.S.C. 1512(c)) prohibits all potential means of corrupt obstruction as per its clear language.
The Court’s interpretation that Subsection 2 of the statute only applies to obstruction that impairs the availability or integrity of evidence in a proceeding is not supported by the plain text and creates ambiguity where none exists.
Deception
(5%)
The author expresses strong opinions and editorializes throughout the article, implying that the Supreme Court's decision in Fischer v. United States is 'utterly baffling' and 'can't be squared with the language of the statute or common sense.' These are not facts but rather interpretations and opinions.
The justices purport to believe in textualism, an approach to the law that says that when interpreting a statute, a judge should first defer to the plain language as written by Congress. But the mental gymnastics employed by the Court to reach the result in Fischer highlight how this Court often only pretends to deploy textualism in pursuit of its preferred outcome.
The Supreme Court is shaming itself
The majority claimed that its interpretation makes more sense because it reduces internal redundancies and overlap within the federal obstruction of justice statutes. But as Barrett argued and the majority conceded, substantial overlap among those different laws remains even under the majority’s interpretation.
Fallacies
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(80%)
The author expresses a clear bias against the Supreme Court's decision in Fischer v. United States and implies that the justices are not following the plain language of the law or common sense. The author also expresses a preference for how they believe Congress intended the law to be interpreted.
But as Barrett argued and the majority conceded, substantial overlap among those different laws remains even under the majority’s interpretation. (This is a chronic problem in the obstruction statutes.)
It disregards the will of Congress and ties the hands of prosecutors in all cases based on hypotheticals divorced from the facts before it. And in the process, it further increases its own power at the expense of the other two branches of government.
So rather than focus on Fischer’s conduct, the Court conjured fantasy future prosecutions of lobbyists and peaceful protesters and concluded that it must rewrite the statute to make sure they don’t occur.
The mental gymnastics employed by the Court to reach the result in Fischer highlight how this Court often only pretends to deploy textualism in pursuit of its preferred outcome.
The Supreme Court ignored the clear language of a federal obstruction-of-justice statute to hold that...
This 6–3 decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, can’t be squared with the language of the statute… or with common sense.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a former police officer, Joseph Fischer, who is seeking to throw out an obstruction charge for joining the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.
The court determined that the law enacted in 2002 as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was only intended to apply to more limited circumstances involving forms of evidence tampering, not the broader array of situations that prosecutors had claimed it covered.
Fischer previously served as a police officer in North Cornwall Township, Pennsylvania.
The court sent the case back to lower courts for further proceedings on whether the Justice Department could still prosecute Fischer under the new interpretation of the law.
Accuracy
At least 4 people died during the January 6, 2021 Capitol occupation by Trump supporters
The US Supreme Court ruled that prosecutors overstepped in charging January 6 rioters with obstruction for trying to prevent certification of the presidential election
Former police officer Joseph Fischer, a supporter of Donald Trump, appealed his indictment on obstruction charges related to the Capitol occupation
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(95%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy when the author quotes Chief Justice John Roberts stating that prosecutors' interpretation of the law would criminalize a broad swath of prosaic conduct. This is an appeal to authority as Roberts is positioning himself as an expert on the matter and his opinion carries weight in this context.
Prosecutors’ interpretation of the law would criminalize a broad swath of prosaic conduct, exposing activists and lobbyist(s) to decades in prison.
