Fischer v. United States
Court case relating to January 6 Capitol attack
2024 United States Supreme Court case
| Fischer v. United States | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued April 16, 2024 Decided June 28, 2024 | |
| Full case name | Joseph W. Fischer v. United States |
| Docket no. | 23-5572 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Dismissed charge of obstruction, 1:21-cr-234-CJN (D.D.C. 2022); reversed, 64 F.4th 329 (D.C. Cir. 2023) |
| Questions presented | |
| Did the D.C. Circuit err in construing 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) ("Witness, Victim, or Informant Tampering"), which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, to include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence?[1] | |
| Holding | |
| To prove a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), the Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Roberts, joined by Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Jackson |
| Concurrence | Jackson |
| Dissent | Barrett, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan |
| Laws applied | |
| Sarbanes-Oxley Act | |
| January 6 United States Capitol attack |
|---|
 |
| Timeline • Planning |
| Background |
| 2020 presidential election and other causes |
| Related groups and persons |
| Participants |
| Notable people
|
| Organizations |
|
| Aftermath |
| Investigations and charges
|
| Reactions
|
|
Fischer v. United States, (Docket No. 23-5572), was a United States Supreme Court case about the proper use of the felony charge of obstructing an official proceeding against participants in the January 6 United States Capitol attack.
Background
On January 6, 2021, Joseph W. Fischer attended the Stop the Steal rally at the Ellipse in Washington, D.C.. Prosecutors said that Fischer had a physical encounter with police at the Capitol, urged on rioters during the Capitol attack, and said that he wanted to go "to war" and take "democratic Congress to the gallows". Fischer's attorneys said that Fischer entered the Capitol building at around 3:25 p.m., after it had already been breached and Congress had already recessed, and exited the building about four minutes later.[1][2]
The felony charge of obstructing an official proceeding has been used to charge more than 300 individuals in connection with the January 6 Capitol attack, and has resulted in more than 150 convictions and guilty pleas. Among those charged with the provision include former President Donald Trump. The criminal statute covering "whoever corruptly alters, destroys, mutilates or conceals a record, document or other object ... or otherwise obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding" had been created by the 2002 Sarbanes–Oxley Act in response to the Enron scandal, when accountants shredding crucial documents did so without being in violation of any laws.[3][4] Before its utilization in the January 6 charges, prosecutors had never applied the statute in cases that did not involve evidence tampering.[5]
District court
Fischer was prosecuted for obstructing an official proceeding of Congress, as well as assaulting a police officer and disorderly conduct in the Capitol.[6] Fischer and other January 6 defendants have argued that prosecution under the Sarbanes–Oxley Act should not apply to their circumstances, as they did not engage in actions in a manner similar to the Enron scandal which spawned the act's creation.[3][4]
In March 2022, District Judge Carl J. Nichols dismissed obstruction charges against three January 6 defendants, including Fischer, ruling that prosecutors had improperly separated the portion of the law forbidding obstruction of an official proceeding from the aforementioned evidence-tampering provision regarding actions against a "document, record, or other object". Nichols' ruling was not binding on other judges, and several other defendants have attempted to similarly argue that Sarbanes–Oxley does not apply to them before other judges without success. Nichols' rulings were subsequently appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.[3][4]
Court of Appeals
In April 2023, the D.C. Circuit reversed Nichols in a 2–1 ruling, finding that Sarbanes-Oxley was broad enough to cover the conduct of Fischer and the other two defendants. It held that the statute covered "all forms of corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding", other than actions already covered by the evidence-tampering provision.[6] Fischer also argued that he did not act with "corrupt intent", which was not addressed immediately by the D.C. Circuit. The court rejected this argument in a subsequent January 6 related case, United States v. Robertson,[7] holding that "corruptly" in this context means acting with criminal intent, without an additional requirement of personal gain.[8][9]
Supreme Court
Fischer appealed the D.C. Circuit's ruling to the Supreme Court in September 2023, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear his appeal in December.[6] The Supreme Court did not take up the cases of the other two defendants.[3] Multiple federal judges have delayed cases or released defendants charged with obstruction of an official proceeding pending the Supreme Court's ruling.[10] Oral arguments in the case were heard on April 16, 2024.[11]
The Supreme Court vacated the D.C. Circuit's ruling, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Justice Roberts wrote for the majority, saying that the government must establish that a defendant "impaired the availability or integrity" of records, documents, or other objects used in an official proceeding.[12] Justice Barrett, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, filed a dissent, saying that the court's reading of the statute is too limited and requires the majority to find "any way to narrow the reach" of the law.[13]
Impact
The ruling could impact 249 of the roughly 1,400 people who were charged in the Capitol attack.[14] Although it remains unclear how the ruling affects Donald Trump's obstruction charges, some legal experts have said that prosecutors still have "strong arguments" they can use to keep them intact.[15][16]
References
- ^ a b "Petition for a Writ of Certiorari" (PDF). Joseph W. Fischer v. United States of America. Supreme Court of the United States. September 11, 2023. Retrieved January 30, 2024.
- ^ Hurley, Lawrence; Reilly, Ryan J. (December 13, 2023). "Supreme Court agrees to hear Jan. 6 case that could affect Trump prosecution". NBC News. Retrieved January 30, 2024.
- ^ a b c d Wehle, Kimberly (January 17, 2024). "The 'Sleeping Giant' Case that Could Upend Jack Smith's Prosecution of Trump". Politico. Retrieved January 30, 2024.
- ^ a b c Hsu, Spencer S.; Jackman, Tom; Weiner, Rachel (March 8, 2022). "U.S. judge dismisses lead federal charge against Jan. 6 Capitol riot defendant". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 30, 2024.
- ^ Quinn, Melissa (April 15, 2023). "Supreme Court to examine federal obstruction law used to prosecute Trump and Jan. 6 rioters". CBS News.
- ^ a b c Howe, Amy (December 13, 2023). "Court to weigh in on scope of law used in Jan. 6 prosecutions". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved January 30, 2024.
- ^ United States v. Robertson, 86 F.4th 355 (D.C. Cir. October 20, 2023).
- ^ Knappenberger, Ryan (October 20, 2023). "DC Circuit backs feds' use of 'corruptly' in key Jan. 6 charge for Trump election subversion case". Courthouse News. Retrieved January 30, 2024.
- ^ Cheney, Kyle; Gerstein, Josh (April 7, 2023). "Appeals court ruling puts hundreds of Jan. 6 felony cases in limbo". Politico. Retrieved January 30, 2024.
- ^ Cheney, Kyle; Gerstein, Josh (January 18, 2024). "DOJ has a near-perfect record in Jan. 6 cases. But it's starting to stumble". Politico. Retrieved January 30, 2024.
- ^ "Supreme Court appears divided over obstruction law used to prosecute Trump, Jan. 6 rioters". CBS News. April 16, 2024.
- ^ Marimow, Ann (June 28, 2024). "Supreme Court says prosecutors improperly charged hundreds of Jan. 6 rioters". The Washington Post. Retrieved June 28, 2024.
- ^ Liptak, Adam (June 28, 2024). "Supreme Court Rules for Member of Jan 6. Mob in Obstruction Case". The New York Times. Retrieved June 28, 2024.
- ^ Kruzel, John (June 28, 2024). "US Supreme Court boosts Jan. 6 rioter's bid to challenge obstruction charge". Reuters. Retrieved June 28, 2024.
- ^ Sherman, Mark (June 28, 2024). "Supreme Court makes it harder to charge Capitol riot defendants with obstruction, charge Trump faces". The Associated Press. Retrieved June 28, 2024.
- ^ Lynch, Sarah (June 28, 2024). "What the US Supreme Court's obstruction ruling means for Jan. 6 riot cases". Reuters. Retrieved June 28, 2024.
External links
- Berris, Peter G. (March 20, 2024). Fischer v. United States: Supreme Court to Consider Federal Obstruction Provision in Capitol Breach Prosecution (Report). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved April 23, 2024.
- Doyle, Charles (November 5, 2010). Obstruction of Congress: A Brief Overview of Federal Law Relating to Interference with Congressional Activities (Report). Congressional Research Service. pp. 15–18. Archived from the original on December 30, 2023. Retrieved December 27, 2023.
- Case docket for Fischer v. United States, 23-5572, (SCOTUS); SCOTUS writ of certiorari
- SCOTUS oral arguments audio
- SCOTUS oral arguments transcript
- SCOTUS opinion
