The highly anticipated Supreme Court ruling in Fischer vs. United States has significant implications for the prosecution of Jan. 6 rioters and former President Trump. The conservative justices’ inclination to narrow criminal laws they perceive as imprecise and potentially ensnaring the unsuspecting is evident in the court’s decision. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., in the majority opinion, argues that the Justice Department’s interpretation of the obstruction statute in question would “criminalize a broad swath of prosaic conduct.”
The ruling brings good news for Joseph Fischer, a Jan. 6 defendant who will now have the opportunity for another trial, depending on the department’s decision to continue prosecuting him. Fischer, charged with assaulting a federal officer and participating in the Capitol breach, cannot be charged under the federal law against obstructing an official proceeding for his involvement in the melee that delayed the certification of the 2020 presidential election. The court ruled that the law is limited to conduct that affects the integrity or availability of records that could be used as evidence in an official proceeding.
Former President Trump is likely to argue that the court’s decision also necessitates the dismissal of two counts against him under the same law in the federal Jan. 6 case. However, the ruling is unlikely to favor the majority of the rioters, and it is even less likely to benefit Trump. A study in Just Security suggests that even if the statute is unavailable to charge the rioters following the Fischer decision, the government can still prosecute their conduct through other means.
Moreover, the ruling may not be useful to Trump due to the nature of his alleged conduct. While he is not accused of altering or mutilating a document, he is alleged to have impaired the legal effectiveness of the certificates, which affected the integrity or availability of records, specifically the valid slates of presidential electors. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s concurring opinion in the case emphasizes this point, suggesting that Fischer could still be charged under the statute because the “official proceeding” in question “plainly used certain records, documents, or objects — including, among others, those relating to the electoral votes themselves.” This analysis could potentially encompass the conduct of the former president as well.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, provides an interesting postscript. Barrett argues that the government’s interpretation of the statute’s text may be expansive but aligns with its plain meaning. This opinion suggests that Barrett, a Trump appointee, may be positioning herself at the center of the court in certain significant cases.
The crucial question raised by this decision, along with the expected presidential immunity opinion on Monday, is whether they will undermine the various criminal charges against former President Trump. However, it is unlikely that these rulings will have such an effect. Trump may attempt to have the charges dismissed based on this ruling, but it is expected that U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan will reject that argument, allowing the case to proceed as charged — unless, of course, the defendant returns to the White House and manages to make the entire prosecution disappear.
2 Responses
I have been following the Fischer vs. University of Texas case closely, and I am thrilled that the Supreme Court has finally made a ruling. As someone who is passionate about equal access to education, my personal goal is to advocate for fair and inclusive admissions policies in universities.
I plan to stay updated on any developments related to this case and similar ones in the future. I want to educate myself about the arguments presented by both sides and engage in meaningful discussions with others to gain different perspectives. By doing so
Board of Education of the City of New York has finally been announced. In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Fischer, stating that the Board of Education’s policy of segregating schools based on race was unconstitutional. This ruling marks a significant turning point in the fight for desegregation in education. According to a recent study, it is estimated that as of 2020, around 15% of public schools in the United States are still considered highly segregated, with over 90