January 6
Youtube
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
Youtube
Conservative justices questioned whether the charge of “obstructing an official proceeding” fits the actions of those involved.
Jack Smith
Youtube
Special counsel Jack Smith is relying on this charge as the basis for prosecuting Trump in his January 6 investigation.
Smith’s case
Youtube
If the Court sides with defense arguments, it could gut Smith’s case against Trump.
Megyn Kelly
Youtube
“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.”
Conservative and liberal
Youtube
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.
Justice Alito
Youtube
“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.
Reject
Youtube
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.
Fischer v. United States
Youtube
“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.”
Obstruction law
pixabay
The Supreme Court’s deliberation on the soundness of an obstruction law, frequently used in cases related to the January 6th attack on the Capitol, has emerged as a pivotal legal challenge with far-reaching implications. The review, which has already resulted in the release of several individuals convicted under the law, reflects a contentious and complex legal landscape that continues to shape the aftermath of the events of January 6th, 2021.
Court’s decision
Youtube
The Supreme Court’s decision to consider the validity of the obstruction law has already led to the release of approximately 10 individuals who were serving prison sentences due to their convictions under this statute. This development has created a sense of uncertainty and anticipation among defendants and legal experts, as the court’s ruling is not expected for several months.
Release defendants
Youtube
Federal judges in Washington have shown a willingness to release defendants from custody or allow them to await further proceedings at home while the court deliberates on the legitimacy of the obstruction law. The interrupted sentences of these individuals, which could potentially be reinstated based on the Supreme Court’s ruling, underscore the legal complexities and uncertainties arising from this review.
350 individuals
Youtube
The obstruction law, encompassed in the penal code as 18 U.S.C. 1512, has been a cornerstone of the legal strategy employed against over 350 individuals involved in the Capitol riot, including prominent figures such as the “QAnon Shaman” and members of far-right extremist groups. The potential ramifications of the Supreme Court’s decision on these cases have triggered concerns and adjustments within the legal and prosecutorial spheres.
Capitol riot
Youtube
The review of the obstruction statute has prompted judges and prosecutors involved in Capitol riot cases to anticipate potential shifts in legal dynamics. Notably, adjustments have been made to address the potential consequences of a ruling that narrows the scope of the obstruction law or invalidates its use in January 6th-related prosecutions. Such adjustments include the consideration of alternative charges and potential adjustments to sentencing in the event of a significant ruling by the Supreme Court.
Potential impact
Youtube
As the Supreme Court’s review of the obstruction law unfolds, the legal, procedural, and societal implications of this momentous challenge will continue to be closely scrutinized. The potential impact on ongoing and future cases related to the Capitol riot underscores the enduring legal complexities and controversies arising from the events of January 6th, 2021.
