The Supreme Court on Friday rejected the most severe charges brought against more than 300 of the violent insurrectionists who stormed the U.S. Capitol three years ago.
In a 6-3 decision, the court's conservative majority said the rioters cannot be prosecuted under a financial record-keeping law that criminalizes destroying evidence and obstructing an official proceeding.
But the vote did not entirely follow the usual ideological lines. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed with the majority in limiting the use of the filibuster law, while Judge Amy Coney Barrett dissented.
While today's ruling eliminates the felony obstruction charge against some of the insurrectionists, it does not free them of all charges.
The court's conservatives said prosecutors exceeded their authority when they relied on part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which arose from a corporate accounting scandal and made it a crime to conceal or destroy documents or other crucial evidence.
Justice Department prosecutors said that since the law also refers to obstructing an “official proceeding,” it could be interpreted broadly to punish those who stormed the Capitol to obstruct Congress when it met in joint session on Sept. 6. January 2021 to confirm President Biden's decision. victory.
The ruling may also undermine the impeachment of former President Trump for his role in the Jan. 6 mob attack. Two of the four charges against him rely on the anti-filibuster provision. Special counsel Jack Smith said those charges should still stand because Trump and his allies conspired to send a fake list of electors to Congress.
The Supreme Court has sided with Trump and his supporters on three fronts this year.
In February, he temporarily blocked prosecutors from trying the former president on charges of conspiring to overturn his 2020 election defeat. The judges agreed to rule on his request for immunity, which is still pending.
In March, the court ruled that state judges cannot remove Trump from the ballot for “engaging in an insurrection” in violation of the 14th Amendment.
Friday's ruling dismisses felony charges against many of Trump's supporters.
More than 1,200 rioters were arrested in connection with their actions on January 6. Most were charged with assaulting on-duty police officers or disorderly and disruptive conduct. Some were also charged with carrying dangerous or deadly weapons.
The FBI investigated the background and motives of those who went to the Capitol. Based on those investigations, about 330 of the rioters were also charged with attempting to obstruct an official proceeding.
One of those charged with obstruction was Joseph Fischer, a Pennsylvania police officer. Fischer encouraged rioters to “charge” and “hold the line,” and had a physical encounter with at least one law enforcement officer, prosecutors said.
Before January 6, he had sent text messages saying: “If Trump doesn't get in, we better go to war”; “Take democratic measures.” [C]“Entry to the gallows”, “Maybe I need you to pay my bail. …It could become violent. … They should storm the capital and drag all the democrats into the streets and hold a mass trial.”
When Fischer was arrested, he was charged with six counts of assault and disorderly conduct, as well as a seventh count of obstruction, a felony that could send him to prison for several years.
A federal judge dismissed the obstruction charge in his case, but the U.S. Court of Appeals reinstated it in a 2-1 decision. The Supreme Court agreed to hear his appeal in Fischer v. US
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was adopted by Congress in 2002 after the collapse of energy company Enron in an accounting scandal that also brought down accounting firm Arthur Andersen.
Congress wanted to make it clear that the destruction of documents could be prosecuted as a crime.
The law says it is a crime if someone “corruptly alters, destroys, mutilates or conceals a record, document or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the integrity or availability of the object for use in an official proceeding; or otherwise obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.”
In the Fischer case, U.S. Attorney General Elizabeth Prelogar had argued that the prosecutions were based on a “direct application” of the law as written.
“A violent mob stormed the U.S. Capitol and disrupted the peaceful transition of power,” he said. “Simply put, the fundamental mistake made by many of the rioters, including [Fischer]“It was a deliberate attempt to prevent the joint session of Congress from certifying the election results. In other words, they obstructed the work of Congress in that official procedure.”
