This was a good day for freedom.
Federal prosecutors improperly charged a Jan. 6 defendant with obstruction, a divided Supreme Court ruled on Friday, likely upending many cases against rioters who disrupted the certification of the 2020 presidential election pic.twitter.com/eV5PNy1od8
— HBMtv (@HBM__tv) June 28, 2024
Supreme Court says prosecutors improperly charged hundreds of Jan. 6 rioters – The Washington Post https://t.co/tg0zwR7WSP
— _theOutpost_ (@_theOutpost_) June 28, 2024
Supreme Court Rebukes Biden DOJ For Abusing Law To Prosecute Jan. 6 Defendants
By: Katelynn Richardson, Daily Caller, June 28, 2024:
The Supreme Court held Friday that the Department of Justice (DOJ) interpreted an obstruction statute too broadly when using it to charge hundreds of defendants for their behavior in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.
The court sided 6-3 in Fischer v. United States with a defendant who challenged the statute, Section 1512(c)(2), which holds up to 20 years in prison for anyone who “obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding.”
“To prove a violation of Section 1512(c)(2), the Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or as we earlier explained, other things used in the proceeding, or attempted to do so,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority ruling. “The judgment of the D. C. Circuit is therefore vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Of the 1,424 defendants charged following Jan. 6, over 350 were charged with “corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding,” according to May numbers from the DOJ. Multiple defendants charged under the statute were granted early release in light of the justice’s decision to hear the case.
Joseph Fischer, who was charged under Section 1512(c)(2), argued the DOJ’s use of the statute to prosecute Jan. 6 defendants for obstructing Congress’ certification of the 2020 election was an “unprecedented expansion.”
Fischer noted it was enacted as part of the Corporate Fraud and Accountability Act of 2002 to target crimes of evidence tampering, focusing on “deterring fraud and abuse by corporate executives.”
The lower courts will now have to “assess the sufficiency” of the charge brought against Fischer — and likely hundreds of other defendants indicted under the same statute — in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling.
“The Government’s reading of Section 1512 would intrude on that deliberate arrangement of constitutional authority over federal crimes, giving prosecutors broad discretion to seek a 20- year maximum sentence for acts Congress saw fit to punish only with far shorter terms of imprisonment—for example, three years for harassment under §1512(d)(1), or ten years for threatening a juror under §1503,” Roberts wrote.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Pamela Geller
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://gellerreport.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.