Dozens of January 6 cases raise uncertainty after the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of prosecutors’ use of obstruction of justice charges

Friday’s Supreme Court ruling narrowing a key obstruction rule applied to more than 300 people charged in connection with the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol could impact dozens of cases brought by the Justice Department in the three years since prosecutors say a mob of former President Donald Trump’s supporters obstructed Congress in acknowledging his defeat in the elections.

In the opinion of the majority of judges (6 to 3), prosecutors exceeded their authority by using charges against defendants in cases where the defendants were unable to demonstrate that their actions compromised the integrity of the material evidence used in the disrupted proceedings.

In a statement Friday, Attorney General Merrick Garland said the Justice Department will take “appropriate steps to comply with the Court’s ruling,” while noting that the “vast majority” of the more than 1,400 defendants so far in the Jan. 6 investigation will remain intact.

MORE: Supreme Court narrows scope of obstruction charge against Capitol rioters and Trump

According to the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, in the 249 cases in which defendants were charged or convicted under the challenged obstruction of justice statute, there was no case in which it was the only criminal charge.

“Today’s decision will have the greatest impact on a narrow range of cases: those in which the only crime for which the defendant was convicted and sentenced was 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2),” the office said in a fact sheet sent to reporters. “In total, approximately 52 individuals were convicted on this charge and no other crime; of those individuals, only 27 are currently serving prison sentences — less than 2 percent of all defendants in cases arising from the Capitol breach.”

U.S. District Court judges in the District of Columbia overseeing Capitol riot cases began responding Friday to the court’s ruling, including in at least one case in which a defendant was convicted of obstruction of justice along with other crimes.

The story continues

D.C. District Judge Dabney Friedrich issued an order for prosecutors and defense attorneys for convicted Jan. 6 rioter Guy Reffitt, who was the first defendant in the Capitol breach to have his case go to trial, to confer and propose a timeline for future proceedings in the case in light of the Supreme Court ruling.

Friedrich asked the parties to contact the court to set a date for Reffitt’s re-sentencing.

In August 2022, Reffitt was sentenced to more than seven years in prison for a range of offences, including obstructing justice, which are now affected by the court’s ruling.

Despite the Supreme Court ruling, prosecutors may still be limited in their ability to continue to press charges against defendants if they have evidence that the defendant intended to specifically prevent Congress from signing the physical election certificates used in the January 6 proceedings.

In an accompanying opinion, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson left open the possibility that even the defendant who pleaded no contest at the center of Friday’s ruling, former police officer Joseph Fischer, could be convicted of the charge after his case is sent back if prosecutors can show that his conduct “included “violating (or attempting to violate) the availability or integrity of items used during the January 6 proceedings.”

That interpretation of the law could also help Special Counsel Jack Smith in his argument to pursue obstruction of justice charges against former President Donald Trump in his federal election interference case.

In legal proceedings before the Supreme Court last year, Smith’s prosecutors argued that even if the court sided with Fischer’s interpretation of the statute, it should have no bearing on two similar charges Smith brought against Trump for his role in allegedly obstructing the Jan. 6 certification process.

Their reasoning: While the case against individual rioters may be more difficult due to obstructing or altering evidence related to the proceedings, Trump’s indictment actually rests on a link to specific documents — fake affidavits provided by so-called “fake electors” who falsely certified Trump as victorious in swing states he lost to Joe Biden.

Dozens of Jan. 6 cases face uncertainty after the Supreme Court narrowed the scope for prosecutors to use the obstruction charge. Originally published on abcnews.go.com