Fischer v. United States: SCOTUS Cripples Trump’s Indictment
How Broad Is the Obstruction Statute Really?
In a significant decision on June 28, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Fischer v. United States, addressing the scope of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), a statute initially enacted as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. This statute was intended to combat corporate and financial fraud by prohibiting the obstruction of official proceedings. Joseph Fischer, a defendant involved in the January 6th Capitol riot, challenged the application of this statute to his actions, arguing that it was improperly applied to situations beyond its original intent.
The case rose to prominence as Fischer and other defendants contended that their prosecution under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act should not apply to their conduct during the Capitol riot, asserting that the Act was designed to address financial crimes related to corporate fraud, not political protests or riots .
Majority Opinion by Chief Justice Roberts:
The Supreme Court, in a majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, vacated the D.C. Circuit’s ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings. The key takeaway from the majority opinion was the requirement for the government to prove that a defendant’s actions “impaired the availability or integrity of records, documents, or other objects used in an official proceeding.” Roberts emphasized that “Congress does not hide elephants in mouseholes,” underscoring that the statute must be interpreted within the context of its language and legislative history.
Concurring Opinion by Justice Jackson:
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred with the majority, adding that the interpretation aligns with the principle that statutes should not be extended beyond their clear terms unless the legislative intent unequivocally supports such an extension. Jackson’s concurrence provided additional support to the majority’s narrower interpretation of the statute.
Dissenting Opinion by Justice Barrett:
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissented. Barrett argued that the majority’s narrow reading of the statute ignored the broad language chosen by Congress to address a wide range of obstructive behaviors. She expressed concern that the majority opinion required finding “any way to narrow the reach” of the law, potentially undermining its efficacy in addressing various forms of obstruction.
Background of the Lead Defendant, Joseph Fischer
Joseph Fischer was prosecuted for his role in the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol, facing charges of obstructing an official proceeding, assaulting a police officer, and disorderly conduct. Fischer and other defendants argued that their actions did not fall within the scope of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Initially, District Judge Carl J. Nichols dismissed the obstruction charges, stating that the Act’s provisions were improperly applied. However, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals later reversed this decision, leading to Fischer’s appeal to the Supreme Court .
Impact on Donald Trump’s January 6th Indictment
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Fischer v. United States has significant implications for the federal indictment of Donald Trump related to the January 6th events. Trump’s indictment includes charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) for allegedly obstructing the certification of the Electoral College results. Following the Fischer decision, prosecutors in Trump’s case must now demonstrate that his actions specifically involved tampering with or impairing the integrity of documents or records used in the certification process.
The Fischer decision effectively destroys Jack Smith’s Indictment all but ensuring that, at least the obstruction charge, is going bye bye.