Judgment with potential consequences for Donald Trump

The Supreme Court of the United States on Friday ruled in favor of a Pennsylvania man who challenged a charge brought against him in connection with the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021. The ruling affects hundreds of Trump supporters who took part in the storming of the Capitol on January 6, 2021 – and also Donald Trump himself.

What is it about?

Fischer v. United States is not a constitutional complaint, but rather a matter of the interpretation of criminal law. According to FBI investigations, over 1,400 rioters were charged with assault on police officers and possession of weapons, among other things. More than 350 Trump supporters who broke into the Congress building were also charged with obstruction of an official parliamentary procedure. This refers to the certification of Joe Biden’s election by Congress, which the rioters sought to prevent on January 6. One of the defendants contested the charge. This charge also appears in the coup criminal trial against Donald Trump.

How did the case come before the Supreme Court?

A former Pennsylvania police officer, Joseph Fischer, who stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021, successfully contested the obstruction of justice charge against him in the District Court in Washington DC. But an appeals court overturned the conviction, and Fischer appealed to the Supreme Court, which took up the case.

How do the disputing parties argue?

The prosecution relied on a paragraph in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Congress passed this law after the corruption scandal surrounding the energy giant Enron. Since then, not only the destruction of evidence and the influencing of witnesses have been considered crimes, but also the obstruction of official proceedings. The prosecution interprets the paragraph broadly; it covers all forms of corrupt obstruction of an official process. The law must therefore be applied to the obstruction of Parliament on January 6th.

Joseph Fischer’s lawyers saw things differently. They argued before the Supreme Court that the aim of the section in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was to protect evidence in investigations. Fischer had not hidden or destroyed any documents or other evidence. In addition, no defendant had ever been convicted of obstruction of Congress in legal practice. The application of the Enron Act in connection with the storming of the Capitol was therefore inadmissible.

What happens now?

The charge of obstruction of justice has been dropped in the more than 350 trials against the rioters of January 6. The verdict will lead to a reduced sentence for those already convicted, and the charge will be dropped for pending cases. Whether this will also happen in the criminal trial against Donald Trump is controversial and will probably have to be clarified in court. This trial is also about the attempted coup and storming of the Capitol and the role that Trump played in it. The maximum sentence according to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is 20 years.