Supreme Court limits obstruction charges against January 6 rioters
By John Fritze, Tierney Sneed and Katelyn Polantz, CNN
(CNN) — The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that the Justice Department overstepped by charging hundreds of people who rioted at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, with obstruction in a decision that could force prosecutors to reopen some of those cases.
At the same time, the high court ruled that the charge could be filed against the rioters if prosecutors are able to demonstrate they were attempting not just to push their way into the building but rather to stop the arrival of certificates used to count electoral votes and certify the results of the election.
The high court’s decision means that special counsel Jack Smith is likely to continue to pursue the same charge against former President Donald Trump.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for a 6-3 majority that included mostly conservatives and one liberal, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed a dissenting opinion that was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
Roberts barely mentioned the attack on the US Capitol that precipitated the charges, focusing heavily on a detailed discussion of the text of the law. Roberts noted that the breach “of the Capitol caused members of Congress to evacuate the chambers and delayed the certification process.”
Roberts argued that if Congress intended for prosecutors to be able to tack 20-year prison sentences onto the kind of conduct witnessed on January 6, 2021, lawmakers would have said so.
“Nothing in the text or statutory history suggests that (the law) is designed to impose up to 20 years’ imprisonment on essentially all defendants who commit obstruction of justice in any way and who might be subject to lesser penalties under more specific obstruction statutes,” Roberts wrote.
Special counsel Jack Smith has alleged Trump’s obstruction of the congressional proceeding is much more sweeping than the rioters’ actions, dating back to a scheme that began on Election Day and involved the use of bogus electoral certificates sent in from states around the country.
Still, Trump’s legal team is likely to attempt to use Friday’s Supreme Court opinion to challenge parts of the case, if and when it returns to the trial-level judge.
The special counsel contemplated the possibility that the Supreme Court would narrow the obstruction charge this way and said in court filings submitted in Trump’s immunity case before the high court that his use of the charge would still survive under such a ruling. Smith pointed specifically to the indictment’s allegations about the fake electors scheme.
The Supreme Court’s opinion released on Friday did not address the fake electors scheme specifically. But the majority opinion by Roberts nodded to the possibility that the obstruction statute would be violated “by creating false evidence — rather than altering incriminating evidence.”
“Today’s ruling will have consequences for many of the January 6 prosecutions, but probably not for the charges against former President Trump,” said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law.
“Unlike the defendant in the case before the court, the charges against Trump relate specifically to trying to alter the evidence — the electoral votes — that Congress was considering in the January 6 joint session. So whereas at least some defendants will likely get re-sentencing (or even new trials), Trump’s case can go forward — assuming the court holds on Monday that he isn’t entirely immune,” Vladeck said.
Approximately 249 cases involving the obstruction charge at the center of Friday’s ruling are pending, according to federal prosecutors. About 52 people were convicted and sentenced with the obstruction charge as their only felony. Of those, 27 people are currently incarcerated, according to prosecutors.
This story has been updated with additional details.
The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2024 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
