Barrett breaks with conservatives over Jan. 6 obstruction charge ruling

BY ELLA LEE - 06/28/24 

In a pointed dissent, Justice Amy Coney Barrett skewered her fellow justices over their decision to narrow an obstruction charge used to prosecute scores of rioters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

The Supreme Court voted 6-3 on Friday to side with Joseph Fischer, a former police officer accused of partaking in the Capitol attack who challenged the provision as being improperly applied to rioters.

Barrett, an appointee of former President Trump — who himself faces a criminal charge that could be impacted by the court’s opinion — noted the high court does not dispute that the certification of the 2020 presidential election results that day qualifies as an “official proceeding.” Nor does it dispute that rioters — including Fischer himself, allegedly — delayed the proceeding. 

“Given these premises, the case that Fischer can be tried for ‘obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding’ seems open and shut. So why does the Court hold otherwise?” the conservative justice wrote in a dissent joined by liberals Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. “Because it simply cannot believe that Congress meant what it said.”

The law, Section 1512(c)(2), makes it a crime to “corruptly” obstruct, impede or interfere with official inquiries and investigations by Congress. It carries a maximum 20 years in prison and  has been used to prosecute more than 350 rioters accused of interrupting Congress’s 2020 certification of the vote.

But Fischer claimed the Justice Department retooled the charge to sweepingly prosecute those who participated in the riot, when the law — established in the wake of the Enron accounting scandal — actually intended to narrowly criminalize document shredding.

Barrett acknowledged that the Congress that enacted the law likely did not have the riot in mind when creating it. She quipped, “Who could blame Congress for that failure of imagination?”

However, she contended that statutes “often go further than the problem that inspired them,” accusing the majority of “abandoning” the rules of statutory interpretation and completing “textual backflips” to find “some way — any way —” to narrow the provision’s reach. 

“Joseph Fischer allegedly participated in a riot at the Capitol that forced the delay of Congress’s joint session on January 6,” Barrett wrote. “Blocking an official proceeding from moving forward surely qualifies as obstructing or impeding the proceeding by means other than document destruction. Fischer’s alleged conduct thus falls within (c)(2)’s scope.” 

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority that it would be “peculiar” to find that, in Congress’s efforts to close Enron gap, it “hid away … a catchall provision” reaching past the document shredding that prompted the legislation.

“The better conclusion is that subsection (c)(2) was designed by Congress to capture other forms of evidence and other means of impairing its integrity or availability beyond those Congress specified in (c)(1),” Roberts wrote.  

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a liberal, joined the conservative majority. In a separate opinion, she signaled her belief it is possible for Fischer and other defendants to still be prosecuted under the charge.

“That issue remains available for the lower courts to determine on remand,” Jackson wrote. 

The Supreme Court’s decision could have profound implications on the Justice Department’s years-long prosecution of the Capitol attack.

Among those charged under the provision were several members of the extremist Proud Boys and Oath Keepers groups, including leaders Enrique Tarrio and Stewart Rhodes. 

Two of Trump’s charges in his federal election subversion case — which has been on an indefinite pause as the Supreme Court weighs his presidential immunity challenge — also stem from the provision. He has pleaded not guilty.

US Supreme Court limits scope of obstruction statute in January 6 Capitol riot case

Ingrid Burke Friedman | JURIST Editorial Director

JUNE 28, 2024

In a closely watched decision stemming from the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, the US Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the government must prove a defendant impaired or attempted to impair the availability or integrity of evidence to be convicted under a key obstruction statute.

On January 6, 2021, a crowd of supporters of then-President Donald Trump gathered outside the US Capitol while Congress convened in a joint session to certify the 2020 Presidential election results in favor of Joe Biden. Amid escalating tensions, some protesters breached the Capitol, breaking windows and clashing with law enforcement, which resulted in a significant delay in the certification process. The events raised widespread concerns about the security of democratic processes in the United States.

The case, Fischer v. United States, centered on Joseph Fischer, who was charged under Section 1512(c)(2) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act for allegedly obstructing Congress’ certification of the 2020 presidential election. Fischer argued the statute only covered actions aimed at evidence impairment, not broader obstructive conduct. The preceding section of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 1512(c)(1) establishes criminal liability for specific actions such as altering, destroying, or concealing records intending to obstruct official proceedings. Subsection 1512(c)(2) broadens this prohibition to anyone who “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.”The Supreme Court was asked to weigh in on whether the expansive language of 1512(c)(2) should be tempered by the specific acts listed in 1512(c)(2).

The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, narrowed the interpretation of Section 1512(c)(2), emphasizing its linkage to the preceding subsection. In assessing the meaning of “otherwise” in (c)(2), the court focused on two legal principles:noscitur a sociis, the principle that a word is “given more precise content by the neighboring words with which it is associated,” andejusdem generis, “a general or collective term at the end of a list of specific items is typically controlled and defined by reference to those specific items that precede it.” Combined, the court reasoned that these principles show that Congress generally would not introduce a general term if doing so would render the text preceding it meaningless.

On this basis, the court reasoned:

Under these principles, the ‘otherwise’ provision of §1512(c)(2) is limited by the list of specific criminal violations that precede it in (c)(1). If, as the Government asserts, (c)(2) covers all forms of obstructive con- duct beyond §1512(c)(1)’s focus on evidence impairment, Congress would have had little reason to provide any specific examples at all. And the sweep of subsection (c)(2) would swallow (c)(1), leaving that narrower provision with no work to do.\

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, argued that the majority improperly interpreted the law, stating “By textually narrowing [subsection 1512(c)(2)], the Court has failed to respect the prerogatives of the political branches,” explaining that once Congress establishes the outer limits of liability, the Executive Branch can choose which cases to prosecute within those boundaries.

The decision is expected to have significant implications for future prosecutions related to obstruction of justice, particularly in high-profile cases involving political uprisings. It aligns with the Court’s historical approach of limiting statutory interpretations to prevent overly broad criminalization of conduct not intended by Congress.

The ruling vacates an earlier decision by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which had ruled in favor of a broader interpretation of Section 1512(c)(2).

Jan. 6 cases start being reopened after Supreme Court ruling

BY ELLA LEE - 06/28/24

Just hours after the Supreme Court narrowed an obstruction charge used to prosecute scores of Jan. 6 rioters, trial-level judges have started to reopen some cases tied to the 2021 Capitol attack.

The federal judge who oversaw the case against Guy Reffitt — the first rioter convicted by a jury — ordered Reffitt’s attorneys and the Justice Department (DOJ) to propose a schedule for “further proceedings” in light of the justices’ decision by July 5, signaling a resentencing is imminent. 

Reffitt was convicted on five counts, including obstruction of an official proceeding. The charge, stemming from Section 1512(c)(2), makes it a crime to “corruptly” obstruct, impede or interfere with official inquiries and investigations by Congress. It carries a maximum of 20 years in prison and has been used to prosecute more than 350 rioters accused of interrupting Congress’s certification of the 2020 electoral vote.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 Friday to rein in the obstruction charge after a different rioter, Joseph Fischer, challenged that provision as being improperly applied to those who participated in the Capitol attack.

The judge who handled Reffitt’s case — U.S. District Judge Dabney Langhorne Friedrich, a Trump appointee — reopened several other rioters’ cases Friday afternoon, directing them to adhere to similar instructions as Reffitt. 

Among the hundreds of defendants convicted of obstruction of an official proceeding are several members of the extremist Proud Boys and Oath Keepers groups — including the leaders of each group, Enrique Tarrio and Stewart Rhodes, respectively, though they were each convicted of the more serious charge of seditious conspiracy.

Their cases remain dormant for now, though an attorney for Tarrio told The Hill earlier Friday that the ex-Proud Boys national chair’s lawyers plan to “thoroughly review” Tarrio’s sentence and “any collateral consequences” of the high court’s decision.

Though most rioters charged with the obstruction count also faced other felony counts, 50 rioters were sentenced with the obstruction law as their only felony, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said during arguments before the Supreme Court in April. 

Other rioters took plea deals involving the charge, like Tennessee native Ronald Sandlin, whom prosecutors said traveled to Washington in a rental car packed with two pistols, two magazines of ammunition, cans of bear mace and other gear. His case was reopened Friday.

The Supreme Court’s decision could also cause one of the most notorious rioters from the Capitol attack to face prosecution again, the DOJ signaled in recent court filings: Jacob Chansley, dubbed the “QAnon Shaman.”

Chansley pleaded guilty to obstruction of an official proceeding and was sentenced to 41 months in prison without a trial. He was released early last year, but in recent court filings, prosecutors said the Supreme Court’s decision “may create a situation where evidence must be preserved and Defendant tried,” not expanding further on the matter. 

Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement following the verdict Friday that he is “disappointed” by the decision, but the “vast majority” of rioters charged for their role in the attack “will not be affected by this decision.” The DOJ will take “appropriate steps” to comply with the high court’s ruling, he said. 

“We will continue to use all available tools to hold accountable those criminally responsible for the January 6 attack on our democracy,” Garland said.

\