Supreme Court makes it harder to prosecute Trump on obstruction charges, rules narrow definition of law used against him and Jan. 6 rioters

The indictments — and in some cases convictions — of hundreds of people accused of participating in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol will have to be retried and possibly thrown out due to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on June 28, 2024. Among the defendants using the broad interpretation of obstruction law now narrowed by the Supreme Court: former President Donald Trump.

In its decision in Fischer v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that a federal statute against obstructing an official proceeding cannot be applied to three defendants accused of participating in the riot at the U.S. Capitol. Although former President Donald Trump is not a defendant in that case, special counsel Jack Smith has separately charged him with violating the same statute.

As a law professor who teaches and writes about constitutional law and the federal courts, let me explain what the court’s decision means for the defendants on January 6 — and for Smith v. Trump.

Charges against Capitol rioters

According to their indictments, Joseph Fischer, Edward Lang and Garret Miller were present at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Prosecutors say all three men entered the Capitol building and attacked police officers during the riot. One of the men, Lang, brandished a bat and a stolen police shield, and the other, Miller, later called for the murder of US Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on social media.

Federal prosecutors charged the three men with various crimes, including assaulting a federal officer, disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds and obstruction of Congress. This last allegation is the subject of a cassation appeal from the Supreme Court.

Before the trial, the defendants argued that the law prosecutors used to charge them with obstruction of justice only covered tampering with evidence, not violently disrupting a congressional proceeding. The district court agreed and dismissed the charge, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the conviction and sent the case back for a new trial.

The Supreme Court then agreed to hear the case, adjourning the hearing until it heard the dispute over the scope of the obstruction law.

Defining a general term

In a 6-3 opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court agreed with the defendants and ruled that the statute only prohibited tampering with evidence. He then sent the case back to the appeals court to decide whether the defendants violated the law under this narrower interpretation by trying to prevent Congress from receiving and certifying the states’ true electoral votes.

The court began with the text of the obstruction statute. This law punishes anyone who “alters, destroys, mutilates or conceals a record, document or other thing” or who “otherwise obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding.” The government argued that the defendants “otherwise obstructed” the congressional proceedings to certify the 2020 election results.

However, the court rejected this argument, holding that the phrase “otherwise impedes” refers only to obstruction that, such as altering, destroying, mutilating or concealing a record, document or object, impairs the availability or integrity of evidence for use in an official proceeding. The phrase “otherwise obstructing” official proceedings contained in the law should be read together with the preceding list of actions, the court explained. Otherwise the list would be redundant.

The court also noted the statute’s historical background. Congress, the court explained, enacted the specific obstruction law in 2002 in the wake of the Enron accounting fraud scandal. It was intended to fill a loophole in the nation’s existing obstruction laws, which at the time prohibited directing a third party to destroy incriminating evidence but not destroying it yourself.

The court explained that the government’s interpretation of the law goes far beyond its purpose by prohibiting forms of obstruction that have nothing to do with evidence and that Congress never intended to criminalize.

What this means for the January 6 defendants – and for Trump

The Supreme Court decision does not end the case against the Fischer defendants, who are expected to stand trial on assault and disorderly conduct charges.

However, it could result in the dismissal of obstruction charges or the overturning of the January 6 obstruction convictions for other defendants. Federal prosecutors have charged at least 250 other defendants with obstructing an official proceeding, and 128 have been convicted, according to an NPR database.

The ruling could also undermine special counsel Jack Smith’s case against former President Donald Trump, whom Smith has accused of obstruction under the same law. If that case survives a separate, ongoing Supreme Court appeal, the former president is likely to seek to have that charge dismissed.

Trump may not succeed, however, because the election obstruction charge against him is based in part on the allegation that he organized voter rolls to certify false election results to Congress. This may mean a violation of the integrity of the evidence used in the certification procedure.

And the charge of obstruction of justice is not the only charge the former president faces. But the ruling could narrow the case and make it more difficult for the special prosecutor to present evidence to the jury about the Jan. 6 violence. Under this new ruling, violence itself may not be considered as obstruction of proceedings.

Fischer also illustrates how, at times, especially in high-stakes cases, justices can employ methods of legal reasoning that they are quick to criticize in other contexts. In their opinion, members of the Supreme Court’s conservative majority cited the legislative history of obstructionist law—evidence that conservative legal scholars such as the late Justice Antonin Scalia have often called implausible.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer’s case could have profound implications for the special counsel’s historic prosecution of former President Trump.

But even if that doesn’t happen, it sheds important light on the court’s inner workings and the federal government’s power to protect the integrity of its proceedings.