WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Tuesday began considering whether those involved in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol can be charged with obstruction of justice, a case that is part of former President Donald Trump's election interference charges. Possibly related.
The justices are hearing an appeal filed by former police officer Joseph Fisher. The defendant is seeking dismissal of charges accusing him of interfering with the official process, Congress's certification of Joe Biden's election victory, which was disrupted by Trump's mob. Supporters.
The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has in the past been skeptical when prosecutors advocate broad application of criminal provisions.
Trump himself has been charged with violating the law and conspiring to obstruct an official proceeding. These are among four charges he faces in the election interference case in Washington, separate from the hush-money charges currently underway in New York.
Tuesday's hearing comes just a week before the Supreme Court hears President Trump's attempt to throw out election interference charges based on claims of presidential immunity. Justice Clarence Thomas was absent without explanation Monday but attended the arguments.
Mr. Fisher and Mr. Trump have both argued that obstruction laws do not apply to their alleged actions and that the charges should be dismissed.
On January 6, prosecutors said, Mr. Fisher joined a crowd that entered the Capitol from the east side. “Charge!” he yelled over and over again, charging toward the police line while shouting, “Mommy!” the government says.
He and other rioters then fell to the ground. After other rioters lifted him up, video released as evidence in another Jan. 6 trial showed him trying to tell officers protecting the Capitol that he was also a police officer. It has been shown that
Mr. Fisher faces seven criminal charges, but only one of them is the focus of the Supreme Court case. He is also charged with assaulting a police officer and entering a restricted building.
The law in question criminalizes acts that obstruct, influence, or disrupt public proceedings. If convicted, he could face up to 20 years in prison.
The provision was enacted in 2002 as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, passed after the Enron accounting scandal.
Mr. Fisher's lawyers argue that the law should be limited to situations involving tampering with physical evidence, which is exactly what the law is intended to address.
A ruling in Mr. Fisher's favor could be in Mr. Trump's favor, but it is not guaranteed. Prosecutors in the Trump case said that even if Fisher were to prevail, Trump's actions would be subject to a narrower interpretation of the law.
