Supreme Court Limits Charge Utilized in Prosecutions of Donald Trump and Numerous January 6 Rioters
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Justice Department overreached in its prosecution of hundreds of rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, and indirectly, Donald Trump. Read More.....
In a 6-3 decision on Friday, June 28, the court stated that a federal obstruction statute cited in cases against more than 350 Capitol rioters was not applied properly, potentially complicating their sentences and causing some cases to be reopened.
Biden-appointed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, known for her careful scrutiny of the intended context of written laws, sided with the conservative majority. Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the dissenting opinion, which the two remaining liberal justices signed onto.
The decision also impacts the scope of Trump's federal January 6 case — two of the former president's four charges in that indictment revolve around the obstruction statute. If those charges are dismissed, Trump would still face two significant felony counts: conspiring to defraud the United States and conspiring against voters' rights. Trump is also awaiting a separate Supreme Court decision that could affect his federal election subversion case. The court is expected to rule on Monday, July 1, on whether presidential immunity protects him from prosecution for actions taken while he was commander-in-chief. This ruling could either nullify Trump's January 6 case or narrow its scope. Despite many rioters expressing an intent to obstruct an official proceeding — and the riot indeed disrupting Congress by forcing evacuations as a violent mob breached the Capitol — the federal statute for this type of crime focuses more on tampering with evidence than physical obstruction.
The Supreme Court's task was to clarify the exact language of the statute, determining whether it serves as a catch-all for obstruction efforts or is limited to physical evidence. Much of the argument centered around the word "otherwise" in 18 U.S. Code § 1512(c)(2), originally enacted with white-collar crime in mind.
No comments: