image source, Brent Stirton
The U.S. Supreme Court has begun hearing a case that could quash the indictments of those who stormed the Capitol in 2021.
The legislation focuses on whether a 2002 federal law enacted to prevent corporate misconduct applies to individuals involved in the January 6 riot.
More than 350 people have been charged in this case under the same law, which carries a sentence of 20 years in prison.
Donald Trump faces similar charges in a pending federal case accusing him of election interference.
The law criminalizes “unauthorized” obstructing or obstructing public proceedings.
On Tuesday, Supreme Court justices heard two hours of arguments over their interpretation of the law. However, how they would govern remained unclear.
A lawyer for a man charged under the law for storming the Capitol argued before a judge that there were already “numerous felonies and misdemeanors” to prosecute his client’s actions. .
Jeffrey Green said the 2002 law passed in the wake of the Enron accounting scandal is not one such law.
U.S. Attorney General Elizabeth Preloger countered that the rioters were deliberately trying to “prevent Congress from certifying the election results” and thus disrupting the official process.
Both men responded to skeptical questions from the judge.
Greene at one point argued there was no historical precedent for the law to be used to prosecute protesters.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor responded: “I don’t know what the lack of history proves, because there has never been a situation where there was an attempt to violently stop the case.” .
Meanwhile, Ms. Preloger responded to a question from Justice Neil Ghosh about whether the law could be extended to cover “sit-ins to disrupt justice” or “hecklers” at the State of the Union. Ta.
“Is setting off a fire alarm before voting punishable by 20 years in federal prison?” he asked, referring to the incident in which Democratic Rep. Jamal Bowman pressed a fire alarm inside the Capitol. I asked.
The Supreme Court’s rules could have far-reaching implications not only for Mr. Trump’s prosecution but also for the hundreds of people charged, convicted and sentenced under the law.
Here’s a breakdown of the key players and legislation being discussed:
What is the 2002 federal law at the center of the case?
This law is called the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
The bill was passed in response to the Enron scandal in the early 2000s, when it was revealed that those involved engaged in large-scale fraud and document shredding.
The destruction of evidence such as records and documents is a crime. But it also punishes anyone who “obstructs, influences, interferes with, or attempts to interfere with, any other official proceeding.”
How was it used in response to the January 6th riot?
Under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) has charged those who participated in the storming of the Capitol with obstruction.
Federal prosecutors allege he did so to prevent Congress from certifying the presidential electoral vote count to cement Joe Biden as the winner of the 2020 election.
Therefore, the second half of the law, which deals with interference with “official proceedings,” would apply, the Justice Department said.
Who is challenging the application of the law in this case and why?
The Supreme Court is hearing a challenge to the law brought by a former Pennsylvania state trooper.
Joseph Fisher was charged on January 6th with obstruction of Congress, assault on a police officer, and disorderly conduct under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
His lawyers argue that prosecutors have gone too far in applying the law, which specifically deals with destroying or tampering with evidence essential to an investigation.
Those challenging the law’s application in the Jan. 6 case also argue that a broad interpretation of the law would allow them to prosecute lobbyists and protesters who interfere with Congressional matters. .
How might the Supreme Court’s decision affect President Trump?
The former president is charged under the very same law in a federal lawsuit accusing him of working to overturn the results of the 2020 election he lost to Biden.
If the Supreme Court justices rule that the law does not apply to the January 6 riot, Trump could seek to dismiss half of the charges he faces in the case.
It could also be seen as a political victory for the former president, who has repeatedly criticized prosecutorial overreach and is up for re-election in November.
A final verdict is expected by June.
