High Court’s Ruling Narrows Federal Obstruction Charges for Capitol Defendants
In an important decision today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Fischer v. United States that the federal government had overreached in applying an evidence destruction law to charge January 6 defendants with felony obstruction for entering the U.S. Capitol. The decision sends the case back to the D.C. Court of Appeals to determine if indictments can still stand under a more limited interpretation of the law. Liberty Counsel, which filed an amicus brief in this case, highlighted the significant First Amendment implications.
A Significant Victory
“This is a BIG WIN,” stated Liberty Counsel. The Supreme Court adopted their interpretation of Section 1512, affirming that it is strictly an evidence destruction provision. The Court also agreed with Liberty Counsel’s stance that broadening the interpretation of Section 1512 would unjustly criminalize protests and lobbying activities.
Read More
Narrow Interpretation Affirmed
The ruling requires the government to prove that the defendant impaired or attempted to impair the availability or integrity of records, documents, objects, or other items used in an official proceeding.
The central question was whether a federal “document-shredding prohibition” could be used to charge January 6 defendants with “corruptly” obstructing an official proceeding—the joint session of Congress convened to certify the 2020 election. This issue arose in the case of a former Pennsylvania police officer who entered the Capitol on January 6.
Majority Opinion by Chief Justice Roberts
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated, “Nothing in the text or statutory history suggests that subsection (c)(2) is designed to impose up to 20 years’ imprisonment on essentially all defendants who commit obstruction of justice in any way and who might be subject to lesser penalties under more specific obstruction statutes. If Congress had wanted to authorize such penalties for any conduct that delays or influences a proceeding in any way, it would have said so. Instead, Section 1512 mentions ‘record,’ ‘document,’ or other ‘object’ 26 times.”
He further explained, “Given that subsection (c)(2) was enacted to address the Enron disaster, not some further flung set of dangers, it is unlikely that Congress responded with such an unfocused and ‘grossly incommensurate patch.’ We therefore decline to adopt the Government’s interpretation, which is inconsistent with ‘the context from which the statute arose.’”
Implications for Activists and Lobbyists
The Court noted that the government’s broad interpretation could criminalize a wide range of ordinary conduct, potentially exposing activists and lobbyists to severe penalties. The Solicitor General acknowledged during oral arguments that under the government’s interpretation, a peaceful protester could face a 20-year sentence under §1512(c)(2). This interpretation would also pose no obstacles to prosecuting lobbying activities that ‘influence’ an official proceeding if done ‘corruptly.’
Background of Section 1512(c)
The law in question, Section 1512(c) of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act, originated from the Enron Corporation collapse. It criminalizes the corrupt destruction, alteration, or concealment of records, documents, or other objects to impair their use in an official proceeding. The statute authorizes up to a 20-year prison sentence for violators. To date, the Justice Department has used this law to charge nearly 330 individuals, including former President Donald Trump, for obstructing Congress.
Liberty Counsel’s Amicus Brief
Liberty Counsel’s brief argued that Section 1512(c) was being misused to “criminalize large swaths of constitutionally protected expression,” violating the First Amendment. The brief cited “prosecutors running amok” due to their disapproval of the “speech, assembly, and expression” of those aiming to influence their representatives on January 6.
The brief concluded by asserting that the Circuit Court’s “untethered interpretation” of the law and the Justice Department’s “selective prosecution” of January 6 defendants under it violated the U.S. Constitution.
Comments from Liberty Counsel
Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver remarked, “The Sarbanes-Oxley Act has nothing to do with the events of January 6, and this new narrow interpretation will make it difficult for these indictments to stand. The First Amendment does not permit the government to turn political expression, assembly, or petitioning the government into criminal acts.”
