Supreme Court Rules That Biden DOJ Misused Obstruction Law in January 6 Cases

In a landmark 6-3 decision,  the Supreme Court ruled against the Department of Justice’s interpretation of a key obstruction statute that was used to wrongfully imprison hundreds of January 6 defendants.

The decision, written by  Chief Justice John Roberts, found that the Justice Department misinterpreted Section 1512(c)(2), which only applies to destruction of physical evidence in an ongoing case or investigative proceeding.

The outcome of the case [Fischer vs. United States] could impact not only the plaintiff, Jan. 6 defendant and former Pennsylvania police officer Joseph Fischer, but former President Donald Trump, and every other Jan. 6 defendant who has faced charges of obstructing an official proceeding.

Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the conservative majority in the mixed decision and conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the liberal faction.

Barrett wrote the dissent, which Kagan and Sotomayor joined.

Fischer will likely see the obstruction charge dismissed, though reportedly faces other charges related to the riot. The former officer was facing up to 20 years in prison.

At issue was the Biden regime’s interpretation of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act’s provision, which deals mainly with corporate fraud. The court concluded that the law should not be broadly applied to a wide range of potential offenses unrelated to its original intent.

The Supreme Court’s decision was a major setback for the Biden regime’s lawfare campaign against Trump and the Jan. 6 defendants.

“THIS MEANS THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS UNLAWFULLY PROSECUTED 350+ AMERICANS FOR THEIR PARTICIPATION IN JANUARY 6—A FLAGRANT ABUSE OF THE LAW TO PUNISH THOSE WHO PROTESTED BIDEN’S ELECTION AND TO CRIMINALIZE POLITICAL DISSENT,” wrote investigative journalist Julie Kelly, author of January 6, How Democrats Used the Capitol Protest to Launch a War on Terror Against the Political Right, on X.

The ruling also has huge implications for Trump, who faces obstruction charges in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s Jan. 6 case.

“The 1512c2 charge represents half of Jack Smith’s indictment against Donald Trump in his J6 case,” Kelly wrote on X. “Smith will go with the farfetched ‘fake electors’ to prove up the document/record tampering aspect of the statute SCOTUS just said is necessary to demonstrate.”

Back in April, Smith argued in a brief in that even if the justices ruled in Fischer’s favor,  the charges against Trump based on the same law would still survive if he proves the former president tried to assemble false slates of presidential electors in 2020.

George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley pointed out on X that the ruling impacts hundreds of cases that “now be reviewed on just on the underlying convictions but sentencing in many cases.”

For Trump, Turley continued,  this rips the wings of the plane that Jack Smith has been trying to take off in D.C.”

In an ordinary case, there would be a superseding indictment. Smith may try to go forward on the remaining counts. However, it is hard to see how the indictment holds together after this decision.

Republicans are cheering the decision as a massive victory for J6 political prisoners and Trump.

“The Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer is an affirmation of the rule of law and a reminder that Congress—not out of control prosecutors—writes the law,” said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) in a statement posted on X.

America First Legal Executive Director Gene Hamilton said in a statement that Biden’s DOJ had “weaponized an arcane, limited criminal statute in an unprecedented campaign of bureaucratic thuggery against political opponents” and that he hoped “further corrective action is taken in the many cases impacted by the decision.”