US court rules in favour of Jan 6 rioters

Published June 29, 2024
Demonstrators gather outside of the US Supreme Court in Washington DC on June 28 as opinions were issued on the January 6 Capitol Riots. — AFP
Demonstrators gather outside of the US Supreme Court in Washington DC on June 28 as opinions were issued on the January 6 Capitol Riots. — AFP

WASHINGTON: Prosecutors overstepped in charging January 6 rioters with obstruction for trying to prevent certification of the 2020 presidential election, the US Supreme Court said on Friday in a case that could see dozens of convictions overturned.

The matter was brought to the court in the case of a former police officer Joseph Fischer, a supporter of former president Donald Trump who entered the Capitol in Washington with hundreds of others on January 6 2021.

Writing the opinion for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said prosecutors’ interpretation of the law would “criminalise a broad swath of prosaic conduct, exposing activists and lobbyist(s) to decades in prison.”

The government “must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so,” he wrote.

The case was decided 6-3, with Ketanji Brown Jackson joining with the court’s conservatives. Amy Coney Barrett, appointed by Trump, penned the dissent, which was joined by liberal judges Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

It now heads back to a lower court, which will decide whether Fischer’s indictment can still stand in light of the narrower interpretation of “obstruction.” In all, 52 rioters have been convicted and sentenced on obstruction charges, with 27 currently incarcerated.

Meaning of ‘otherwise’

At the core of the case was how to interpret the word “otherwise” in the relevant statute, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which was enacted after the destruction of documents in the 2001 Enron scandal.

This imposes up to 20 years in prison for whoever corruptly tampers with documents in an attempt to prevent them from being used in official proceedings, or “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.”

Published in Dawn, June 29th, 2024

Opinion

Editorial

Military option
Updated 21 Nov, 2024

Military option

While restoring peace is essential, addressing Balochistan’s socioeconomic deprivation is equally important.
HIV/AIDS disaster
21 Nov, 2024

HIV/AIDS disaster

A TORTUROUS sense of déjà vu is attached to the latest health fiasco at Multan’s Nishtar Hospital. The largest...
Dubious pardon
21 Nov, 2024

Dubious pardon

IT is disturbing how a crime as grave as custodial death has culminated in an out-of-court ‘settlement’. The...
Islamabad protest
Updated 20 Nov, 2024

Islamabad protest

As Nov 24 draws nearer, both the PTI and the Islamabad administration must remain wary and keep within the limits of reason and the law.
PIA uncertainty
20 Nov, 2024

PIA uncertainty

THE failed attempt to privatise the national flag carrier late last month has led to a fierce debate around the...
T20 disappointment
20 Nov, 2024

T20 disappointment

AFTER experiencing the historic high of the One-day International series triumph against Australia, Pakistan came...