The U.S. Supreme Court appeared skeptical during oral arguments in a case relating to obstruction charges against former President Donald Trump and January 6 defendants.
Conservative justices questioned whether the charge of “obstructing an official proceeding” fits the actions of those involved.
Special counsel Jack Smith is relying on this charge as the basis for prosecuting Trump in his January 6 investigation.
If the Court sides with defense arguments, it could gut Smith’s case against Trump.
“BIG- Supreme Court arg on whether ‘obstructing an official proceeding’ can form the basis for a crim charge vs J6 Ds (INCLUDING TRUMP – this is the heart of Smith’s J6 case vs him) is not going well for the govt. At all. (All 6 conservatives sound on side of the defense.),” journalist Megyn Kelly wrote, adding, “If they side with the defense here, it guts Jack Smith’s DC case against Trump. Huge huge import.”
Both conservative and liberal justices queried Smith about the intent of the statute’s language and whether it applies to actions involving documents or evidence, as Smith is alleging.
“I think you may be biting off more than you can chew…that the ‘otherwise’ clause can only be read the only way you read it,” justice Samuel Alito told Smith, Kelly wrote.
The questioning suggested the Court may reject Smith’s broad interpretation of the obstruction law, potentially blocking a key part of his case against Trump and others over the Capitol riot.
“Petitioner asserts … that the grant of review in Fischer v. United States … suggests that the Section 1512(c)(2) charges here impermissibly stretch the statute. But whether the Court interprets Section 1512(c)(2) consistently with a natural reading of its text or adopts the evidence-impairment gloss urged by the petitioner in Fischer, the Section 1512 charges in this case are valid,” Smith wrote, noting that “the use of falsehoods or creation of ‘false’ documents satisfies an evidence-impairment interpretation.”
