The Supreme Court heard arguments on Thursday in the Fischer v. United States case, which focused on the legality of charging January 6 defendants under the obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations statute. This statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1512, has been utilized by the Biden Justice Department to prosecute hundreds of individuals involved in the January 6 events at the U.S. Capitol.
Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch nukes Joe Biden’s DOJ over January 6th sentences:
Gorsuch lists multiple cases of folks who “obstructed a Congressional proceeding” without receiving a 20 year sentence.
1. Sit-ins at a trial (Kavanaugh protests)
2. Pulling a fire alarm (Rep.… pic.twitter.com/DWETkzi7JI— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) April 16, 2024
According to SCOTUSblog, the case raises questions about the scope of the obstruction law and whether it was misapplied in the context of the January 6 investigations. The DC Court of Appeals had previously upheld the use of the statute in these cases, but the Supreme Court now has the opportunity to review and potentially overturn this decision.
During the oral arguments, Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned whether the DC Court of Appeals had mistakenly interpreted the obstruction statute. He listed four instances of actions that could be considered obstruction of a congressional proceeding, including the fire alarm stunt pulled by Rep. Jamaal Bowman last year. This line of questioning raised doubts about the Biden Justice Department’s interpretation and application of the statute in these cases.
More from SCOTUS:
“Would a sit-in that disrupts a trial or access to a federal courthouse qualify?” Justice Neil Gorsuch asked. “Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify for 20 years in federal prison?”
— Mary Walter (@MaryWalterRadio) April 16, 2024
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the government in the case, argued that evidence of intent would be necessary to prove obstruction in these circumstances. This statement was met with a sharp response from Gorsuch, who quipped, “Oh, they intend to do it alright.” This exchange highlighted the crux of the issue, with the government arguing for a broad interpretation of the obstruction statute and the defense arguing for a narrower view.
Dear Biden,
Again, pack the fucking court.
Everyone who heard the Fox news garbage-grade punditry coming out of Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch’s mouth today about J6 rioters you will agree with me.— Tosin Ash.
(@Tosyneno) April 16, 2024
The Fischer v. United States case has significant implications for the hundreds of January 6 defendants currently facing charges under the obstruction statute. If the Supreme Court were to rule in favor of the defendants, it could potentially lead to the dismissal of these charges or a reduction in their sentencing. On the other hand, a ruling in favor of the government could strengthen their position and set a precedent for future cases involving obstruction of congressional proceedings.
The use of this obstruction statute has been a contentious issue since it was first applied to January 6 defendants. Critics argue that it is being used as a justification to charge individuals who may have been involved in the events but did not actively obstruct the proceedings of Congress. Supporters argue that the statute is an essential tool in holding those responsible for the events at the Capitol accountable.
Neil Gorsuch just analogized the January 6 rioters storming the Capitol and trying to hang Mike Pence to my Congressman, @JamaalBowmanNY, pulling a fire alarm.
The conservatives are basic black Fox News watchers given lifetime power.
— Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) April 16, 2024
