WASHINGTON — Supreme Court justices on Tuesday expressed concern about the Justice Department's use of obstruction laws to bring charges against those involved in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
A case that could be related to former President Donald Trump's election interference prosecution.
Judges are seeking dismissal of charges accusing former police officer Joseph Fisher of obstructing the official process of Congress' certification of Joe Biden's election victory, which was interrupted by a mob of Trump supporters. The appeal filed was heard. .
The law in question criminalizes acts that obstruct, influence, or disrupt public proceedings. If convicted, he could face up to 20 years in prison.
The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has in the past been skeptical when prosecutors advocate broad application of criminal provisions.
Some justices expressed similar sentiments during Tuesday's arguments, asking whether the statute in question can be used to prosecute peaceful protesters, sometimes including those who disrupt Supreme Court proceedings. Asked.
“Do sit-ins that disrupt trials and access to federal courthouses qualify?” asked conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch. “Does the person who heckled in the audience today, or at the State of the Union, qualify? Does he qualify for 20 years in federal prison if he sets off a fire alarm before voting? ?”
Fellow conservative Justice Samuel Alito asked similar questions during a lengthy exchange with Attorney General Elizabeth Preloger, in which he pointed out that those who protested before the Supreme Court cannot be prosecuted under the law.
“I think it's a fundamentally different attitude than if they had stormed this courtroom, stormed the Supreme Court Police Department, and demanded that the justices and other participants flee for safety,” Preloger said. Stated.
“What happened on January 6th was very serious. I'm not going to equate this with that,” Alito responded. “But we need to look at where the scope of this law extends under your interpretation.”
Trump himself has been charged with violating the law and conspiring to obstruct an official proceeding. These are among four charges he faces in the election interference case in Washington, separate from the hush-money charges currently underway in New York.
Tuesday's hearing comes just a week before the Supreme Court hears President Trump's attempt to throw out election interference charges based on claims of presidential immunity. Justice Clarence Thomas was absent without explanation Monday but attended the arguments.
Mr. Fisher and Mr. Trump have both argued that obstruction laws do not apply to their alleged actions and that the charges should be dismissed.
Mr. Fisher faces seven criminal charges, but only one of them is the focus of the Supreme Court case. He is also charged with assaulting a police officer and entering a restricted building.
Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that Fisher faces six other charges and questioned why the Justice Department needed to use obstruction law to prosecute Fisher. It showed.
“Why aren't those six counts enough?” he asked.
Similarly, Justice Clarence Thomas, a conservative activist whose wife, Ginny Thomas, supported President Trump's efforts to challenge the election results, has criticized “violent protests” that have disrupted trials in the past. In response, prosecutors asked if the law had ever been used.
“I can't give you an example of enforcing this rule in a situation where people violently stormed into a building to disrupt a formal proceeding,” Preloger said.
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor appears to support Preroger on this point.
“We've never been in a situation like this where people violently try to stop a case, so we don't know what the lack of history proves,” she said.
Preloger tried to convince the judge that prosecutors would not charge people under obstruction laws without careful consideration.
There are approximately 1,350 defendants in total on January 6, but only 350 have been charged with obstructing official proceedings. The average prison sentence for someone charged only with felony obstruction is 26 months, she added.
While federal prosecutors are seeking a heavier sentence for the defendant, who was found guilty of obstruction on Jan. 6, Preloger focused on the actual sentence imposed by the judge.
The provision was enacted in 2002 as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, passed after the Enron accounting scandal.
On January 6, prosecutors said, Mr. Fisher joined a crowd that entered the Capitol from the east side. “Charge!” he yelled over and over again, charging toward the police line while shouting, “Mommy!” the government says.
He and other rioters then fell to the ground. After other rioters lifted him up, video released as evidence in another Jan. 6 trial showed him trying to tell officers protecting the Capitol that he was also a police officer. It has been shown that
Mr. Fisher's lawyers argue that the law should be limited to situations involving tampering with physical evidence, which is exactly what the law is intended to address.
A ruling in Mr. Fisher's favor could be in Mr. Trump's favor, but it is not guaranteed. Prosecutors in the Trump case said that even if Fisher were to prevail, Trump's actions would be subject to a narrower interpretation of the law.