WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday began weighing whether those involved in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol could be charged with obstruction of official action, a case that could lead to former President Donald Trump's election interference lawsuit.
The justices are hearing an appeal filed by defendant Joseph Fischer seeking to dismiss a congressional certification of Trump's mob-disrupted election victory that accused him of obstructing official action. Supporters.
The court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, has been skeptical of prosecutors in the past when they have pushed for broader applications of criminal statutes.
Trump faces charges of violating the same statute and conspiracy to obstruct official proceedings. They are among the four charges he faces in his election interference case in Washington, separate from the hush money cases currently underway in New York.
Tuesday's hearing comes a week before the Supreme Court hears Trump's bid to toss his election meddling charges based on a request for presidential immunity. Judge Clarence Thomas appeared for arguments Monday without comment.
Both Fischer and Trump say the embargo does not apply to their conduct, meaning the charges should be dropped.
This is Jan. 6, Lawyers say, Fischer joined the crowd marching past the Capitol from the east side. “Charge!” He yelled again and again, before thrusting forward, “Mother——s!” Government says.
He and other rioters fell to the ground. After other rioters carried him away, video released as evidence in other raids on January 6 showed him trying to appeal to officers guarding the Capitol, saying he was also an officer.
Fischer faces seven criminal charges, only one of which is the focus of the Supreme Court case. He also faces charges of assaulting a police officer and entering a restricted building.
The The law in question Criminalizes attempts to obstruct, influence or hinder any official action. A conviction can carry a prison sentence of up to 20 years.
The provision was enacted in 2002 as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, enacted after the Enron accounting scandal.
Fischer's lawyers say the law should be limited to situations where physical evidence is tampered with.
A ruling in Fischer's favor would benefit Trump, though it's not guaranteed. Prosecutors in the Trump case have said that even if Fisher were to win, Trump's conduct would be covered by a narrow interpretation of the law.
“Friend of animals everywhere. Devoted analyst. Total alcohol scholar. Infuriatingly humble food trailblazer.”