Title: Supreme Court to Review Case Potentially Affecting January 6 Charges, But Not Trump's Indictment
A slew of individuals, including 327, have been prosecuted by the Department of Justice for violations related to the Capitol incident in January. These convictions could potentially be impacted.
The initial whispers in the media suggested that a ruling from the Supreme Court could be imminent by July, posing substantial consequences for Trump's legal proceedings. The New York Times headline might have led readers to draw similar conclusions: "Justice sets January 6 trial for Capitol rioter, potentially key for Trump case."
However, taking a step back reveals that Fisher's case may not actually have any direct connection to Trump's legal troubles. The contested law at hand is 18 U.S.C. §1512(c)(2), particularly its second clause:
Regardless of corruption—
Or,
Anyone who hinders, influences, or impedes an official proceeding will be punished or sentenced to at most 20 years, or both.
The crux of the matter is to determine whether the second clause of §1512(c)(2) encompasses the "physical hindrance" of a proceeding, like Fisher and others' infiltration of the Capitol, or only forms of "document manipulation" that jeopardize the integrity of the official proceeding.
The count of misconduct against Fisher alleges that he was physically engaged with at least one law enforcement officer upon breaking into the Capitol, and allegedly messaged a friend that "Congress members can't be chosen if they can't breathe ... haha."
Its doubtful, however, that these accusations will directly affect Trump, as he was not present at the Capitol on January 6. Let's delve into the legal implications for a moment.
The decision hinges on how the Court interprets thephrase "otherwise" in §1512(c)(2). Does it mean any behavior that hinders an official proceeding is criminal, or does it require behavior similar to that described in §1512(c)(1) (alteration, destruction, concealment, or obfuscation of records)?
In Fisher's case, US District Judge Carl Nichols held the latter view, ruling in March 2022 that the charges against him of obstructing an official proceeding must be dismissed since Fisher's alleged obstruction did not represent manipulation of evidence.
However, in April 2022, two US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit judges disagreed with Judge Nichols and reinstated the charges. A third judge, Judge Greg Casas, concurred with Judge Nichols' decision but disagreed on a separate point.
To be sure, disagreements among judges are nothing new. That conservative judges like Justice Casas and Judge Nichols (both appointed by former President Trump) have reached such decisions is a positive indication for the conservative majority on the Supreme Court.
However, for Trump, the situation is different. Although the Court decided that §1512(c)(2) only applies to actions that impair the integrity of evidence, a grand jury in Washington, D.C. accused Trump of orchestrating a "sham election" scheme, as per the August indictment.
The allegations include creating false voters and fake certificates asserting that those false voters were legitimate electors, which were then sent to the vice president and Congress. According to any definition, the falsification and transmission of documents for an unlawful purpose would jeopardize the integrity of evidence in an official proceeding.
Prosecutors bear the responsibility of counseling grand juries on legal questions and ensuring that the indictment aligns with legal developments. When the grand jury indicted Trump in August, prominent attorneys, including Special Counsel Jack Smith, had been waiting on relevant court decisions and knew that Fisher's case was likely headed to the Supreme Court.
A small advisory note: Trump's lawyers could argue that his behavior is not "similar" to the ultra-restricted behavior described in §1512(c)(1): Trump and his associates are accused of creating false documents, not altering, destroying, or concealing them, or hiding records, documents, or other items.
Enrichment Insights
The Supreme Court's interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) in the context of the January 6 charges against former President Trump involves a detailed statutory analysis. Here are the key insights:
- Interpretation of "Otherwise":
- The Court has interpreted the word "otherwise" in § 1512(c)(2) narrowly. This means the provision is not intended to cover all attempts to obstruct an official proceeding but rather those that involve impairing the availability or integrity of records, documents, or other objects used in the proceeding[1][4].
- Intertwined Provisions:
- The Court has noted that § 1512(c)(1) and § 1512(c)(2) must be read together. This is because the word "otherwise" in § 1512(c)(2) suggests that the provision is intended to cover actions different from those specified in § 1512(c)(1), such as document destruction or alteration[1][4].
- Contextual Analysis:
- The Court has used a contextual analysis, similar to the football analogy, to illustrate its interpretation. For instance, if a rule prohibits grabbing a facemask or helmet with the intent to injure and also prohibits "otherwise attacking, assaulting, or harming any player," shouting insults at a quarterback would not be considered a violation because it does not involve physical harm[4].
- Implications for Trump's Case:
- This interpretation could potentially impact the January 6 charges against former President Trump by limiting the scope of what constitutes obstruction under § 1512(c)(2). The charges against Trump include allegations of obstructing an official proceeding, which might need to be specifically tied to actions that impair the integrity or availability of records, documents, or other objects used in the proceeding[2][4].
In summary, the Supreme Court's interpretation of § 1512(c)(2) suggests that the provision is not meant to broadly cover all attempts to obstruct proceedings but narrowly focused on actions that directly impair the integrity or availability of records, documents, or other objects used in an official proceeding, rather than hindering the proceeding itself. This could have significant implications for the prosecution of former President Trump under this statute.
Get our weekly newsletter for free
- Subscribe to the CNN Opinion Newsletter
- Follow us on Twitter and Facebook
Good luck! Even Judge Nichols conceded that 1512(c)2, under his interpretation, would indeed encompass "false entries" in the documentation, which coincides with the allegations against Trump in the indictment. However, it is important to note that anyone is innocent until proven guilty.
It's seldom that one can predict with confidence how a case before the Supreme Court will turn out or the language the justices will employ. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court's decision to hear Fisher's case does not present an imminent threat to the cautious indictment of Trump in Washington, D.C.
Also read:
- This will change in December
- German activists speak out in Dubai on suffering in Israel and the Gaza Strip
- Despite UN vote: fighting between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip continues
- Nuclear fusion: hype or solution to energy problems?
