Supreme Court Tosses ‘Obstruction’ Charge Against Jan. 6 Rioter

WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court on Friday struck down charges against a former Pennsylvania police officer who entered the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6, 2021, riot intended to stop the certification of the 2020 presidential election.

In a 6-3 vote, a majority of the justices held that the law Joseph Fischer was charged under for his actions on that day — obstruction of an official proceeding — applies only to evidence tampering.

Friday’s ruling could have a massive impact on the charges levied against 300 other Jan. 6 defendants, and could lead to the dropping of two of the four charges Special Counsel Jack Smith is currently pursuing against former President Donald Trump in Washington, D.C.

The ruling affirms an earlier ruling by U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, who ruled that the relevant law, 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), only applies to the destruction or tampering with evidence, and dismissed the obstruction charge against Fischer.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit later overturned that ruling, holding that the statute “applies to all forms of corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding.”

The Supreme Court on Friday took a narrower view.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., said that when it comes to courts acting on a statute, “a general phrase can be given a more focused meaning by the terms linked to it.” 

In this case, he said, the statute at the heart of the dispute offers several specific examples of the kind of evidence tampering that the law prohibits.

The “most sensible inference,” he continued, is that the scope of the law is limited to the examples cited in it.

To presume otherwise, he wrote, “would criminalize a broad swath of prosaic conduct, exposing activists and lobbyists alike to decades in prison.”

In her dissent, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, said the majority “simply cannot believe that Congress meant what it said” when the statute was written.

While she acknowledged that events like the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol may not have been anticipated by the statute’s language, the court should stick to the text when statutes “go further than the problem that inspired them.”

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined Barrett’s dissent.

In a written statement, Attorney General Merrick Garland said he was disappointed by the ruling, but he also pointed out that the vast majority of the more than 1,400 defendants charged for their illegal actions on Jan. 6 will not be affected by this decision. 

“There are no cases in which the department charged a Jan. 6 defendant only with the defense at issue in Fischer,” Garland said.

Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., called the court’s decision in Fischer v. United States “a massive win for the rule of law.” 

“It’s clear that the Department of Justice and activist prosecutors have engaged in an abuse of power to target a political opponent and his supporters as opposed to administering the justice every American deserves,” Scalise said in a written statement. “This decision by the Supreme Court affirms what we’ve been saying all along: political weaponization of the justice system is out of control. Americans should never face persecution for their political beliefs, and I’m glad to see justice being restored.”

Dan can be reached at [email protected] and @DanMcCue