Three individuals who participated in the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol are appealing to the Supreme Court to dismiss part of their indictment, potentially reducing their prison sentences by up to 20 years. These cases mark the first criminal proceedings related to the 2021 insurrection to reach the highest court in the nation.
Edward Lang, Joseph Fischer, and Garret Miller argue that the prosecutors overstepped their authority by charging them with violating a federal law that prohibits obstructing “official proceedings.” This law was enacted in 2002 in response to the Enron financial scandal. Lang had documented his involvement in the Capitol attack on social media, while Miller gained notoriety for threatening Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
More than 200 individuals have been charged with violating the same obstruction law in connection with the January 6th events, including former President Donald Trump. Trump faces this charge as part of a grand jury indictment handed down last month following an investigation by special counsel Jack Smith.
If the Supreme Court were to rule in favor of the defendants, it could potentially undermine these charges in other cases, including Trump’s.
The central issue revolves around whether the counting of electoral votes, which was disrupted as lawmakers fled and police clashed with rioters on January 6th, qualifies as an “official proceeding.” Prosecutors argue that this law covers actions such as lying to a grand jury or even “burning a building to conceal the bodies” of murder victims. According to the Justice Department, it also includes storming the Capitol to disrupt a congressional proceeding.
However, the defendants claim that this provision was intended to prevent individuals, such as those involved in the Enron scandal, from tampering with evidence. They argue that their actions on January 6th had nothing to do with that.
Furthermore, they express concerns that allowing prosecutors to apply the obstruction charge could set a dangerous precedent for prosecuting less violent interruptions and potentially threaten the First Amendment.
While most courts have sided with the prosecutors, a U.S. District Court judge ruled in favor of the defendants, stating that the law required them to have taken some action involving evidence to be charged under the Enron-era provision. This ruling was an outlier, as 14 other district court judges in Washington, D.C., agreed with the Justice Department’s interpretation of the law. The appeals court in Washington later reversed this decision, leading to the Supreme Court appeal.
Many legal experts predict that the Supreme Court is unlikely to take up these cases at this time. This is partly due to appeals courts generally deferring to grand juries on criminal charges and because there has been little disagreement among appeals courts on how to interpret the law so far.
The outcome of these appeals could have significant implications not only for the defendants but also for other individuals charged in connection with the January 6th riot, including former President Trump. The Supreme Court will make a decision on whether to hear these cases later this year.