On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court made a decision supporting a former police officer who is attempting to have an obstruction charge against him dismissed for his participation in the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021. The court found that the law, passed in 2002 as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in response to the Enron accounting disaster, was only meant to be applicable in certain situations involving the altering of physical evidence. Joseph Fischer is one of hundreds of defendants, including former President Donald Trump, who have been charged with impeding an official proceeding over the attempt to stop Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s election victory. The case won by a vote of 6-3 by the court.
The relevant provision, 18 U.S. Code 1512, imposes a maximum 20-year jail penalty. Fischer faces seven criminal charges, only one of which was the focus of the Supreme Court case. Even if the obstruction charge is ultimately dismissed, the other charges, including assaulting a police officer and entering a restricted building, will remain in place. The court returned the matter to lower courts to continue the discussion on whether the Justice Department may still prosecute Fischer in light of the revised legal understanding.
To what extent the ruling favors Trump remains to be seen. Even if Fischer prevails in the case against Trump, prosecutors claimed that a stricter interpretation of the law would still apply to Trump’s actions. The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has been skeptical of prosecutors when they assert broad applications of criminal provisions. In his election interference case, Trump faces four charges, including one count of obstructing an official proceeding and another of conspiracy to do so.
In a separate case, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that an Oregon city’s policy prohibiting anybody without a permanent residence from sleeping outside did not violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual” punishment. Chief Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the 6-3 opinion, with dissent coming from the three liberal judges of the court. The majority focused almost exclusively on the needs of local governments and left the most vulnerable in society with an impossible choice: Either stay awake or be arrested.
The Supreme Court has been busy this week as the term nears an end. The Court ruled on Thursday that, to comply with a federal provision requiring emergency rooms to provide “stabilizing treatments” to patients in severe condition, doctors in Idaho must, at least for the time being, be permitted to perform emergency abortions, despite the state’s nearly complete ban. The Court invalidated stays it had issued earlier this year and concluded that writs of certiorari in two legal matters were “improvidently granted,” according to an unsigned opinion.
