In a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) application of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) in prosecuting individuals involved in the January 6 Capitol riot. The case, Fischer v. United States, represents a significant legal victory for those charged under this statute and a profound setback for the Biden administration’s DOJ. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson sided with most of the conservative majority Chief Justice Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the dissenting opinion and sided with liberal justices Kagan and Sotomayor.
The DOJ had utilized Section 1512(c)(2) to charge over 350 individuals with obstructing an official proceeding. This statute originally aimed to criminalize actions that corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede any official proceeding. However, the Supreme Court’s ruling has clarified the scope of this statute, determining that it is limited to conduct directly related to the impairment of evidence for use in an official proceeding.
The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by arguments highlighting the DOJ’s historical interpretation of the statute. Traditionally, prosecutions under Section 1512(c)(2) were confined to cases involving tampering with or destroying evidence pertinent to an official proceeding. The Court found that the DOJ’s broader application in the January 6 cases overreached this original intent, thereby invalidating many of the charges.
This ruling highlights a critical legal boundary for prosecuting obstruction-related offenses and emphasizes the necessity for precise statutory interpretation. Critics of the DOJ’s approach argue that the broad application of Section 1512(c)(2) was a politically motivated effort to suppress dissent against the Biden administration. This perspective gained traction as the Supreme Court justices questioned the DOJ’s expansive reading of the statute, indicating a inconsistency with its historical enforcement.
The decision has immediate and significant implications. Over 350 individuals who faced charges under this statute may now see their cases dismissed or significantly altered. This outcome has been hailed by defenders of the January 6 defendants as a victory for legal fairness and a check against governmental overreach.
The Justice Department issued the following statement from Attorney General Merrick B. Garland on the Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer v. United States:
The ruling in Fischer v. United States marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing legal battles stemming from the January 6 events. It sets a precedent for how obstruction statutes can be applied and highlights the judiciary’s role in maintaining the balance of power and protecting civil liberties.