The U.S. Supreme Court is currently examining the statute used to prosecute individuals involved in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, with conservatives on the court expressing doubts about its application. The law in question makes it a crime to obstruct or impede an official proceeding, but former police officer Joseph Fischer is challenging its use, specifically the second provision which he argues was not intended as a catchall obstruction law.
During the court proceedings, the liberal justices seemed more supportive of the government’s argument that the law was meant to fill gaps in existing obstruction statutes. However, conservative justices raised questions about whether the law has been applied consistently in similar cases in the past.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that in order to be charged under the obstruction statute, defendants must show intent to disrupt official proceedings, such as the electoral vote count. Despite concerns over the maximum penalty of 20 years in prison for violating the statute, Prelogar noted that the average sentences have been around 26 months.
If the court rules in favor of Fischer, it could have implications for the 350 people charged under the obstruction statute, potentially resulting in resentencing or release from prison. The obstruction law is also a key component in the charges against former President Donald Trump in the election obstruction case in Washington, D.C.
Special counsel Jack Smith has indicated that regardless of the Supreme Court’s ruling, the charges against Trump are likely to survive due to his alleged conduct involving fake electors. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching consequences for the prosecution of individuals involved in the Capitol riot and other similar cases in the future.
