SCOTUS 23-5572: 6-3 Concurring

Does 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence? UPDATES IN COMMENTS...

"The Supreme Court's decision is an affirmation of the rule of law and a reminder that Congress—not out of control prosecutors—writes the law."
House Judiciary Committee Chairman (R-OH)

Facts of the Case

On January 6, 2021, while Congress was convening to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election in favor of Joe Biden, thousands of supporters of the losing candidate, Donald Trump, converged on the United States Capitol to disrupt the proceedings. The Trump supporters swarmed the building, overwhelming law enforcement officers who attempted to stop them. The chaos wrought by the mob forced members of Congress to stop the certification and flee for safety. Congress was not able to resume its work for six hours.

Joseph Fischer, Edward Lang, and Garret Miller were indicted for various offenses related to their involvement in the Capitol riot on January 6. All three were charged with felony offenses of assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers, and misdemeanor offenses of disorderly conduct in a Capitol building and in restricted grounds, involving the intent to disrupt congressional sessions and government functions. Additionally, each faced a count of obstruction of an official proceeding. The defendants challenged this obstruction charge, claiming that the statute does not prohibit their alleged conduct on that day. The district court agreed, holding that the statute does not apply to assaultive conduct, committed in furtherance of an attempt to stop Congress from performing a constitutionally required duty. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed, concluding that the natural, broad reading of that provision is that it applies to forms of obstructive conduct, not just those related to investigations and evidence.

Question

Does 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence?

Syllabus

FISCHER v. UNITED STATES

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 23–5572. Argued April 16, 2024—Decided June 28, 2024

Opinion of the Court Delivered By Roberts

Section 1512 provides:

“(c) Whoever corruptly—

“(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or

“(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, “shall be fined . . . or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”

…

To prove a violation of Section 1512(c)(2), the Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or as we earlier explained, other things used in the proceeding, or attempted to do so. See supra, at 9. The judgment of the D. C. Circuit is therefore vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. On remand, the D. C. Circuit may assess the sufficiency of Count Three of Fischer’s indictment in light of our interpretation of Section 1512(c)(2).

It is so ordered.

Jackson Concurring

In my view, the Court properly interprets §1512(c)(2) in the opinion it issues today. It also rightly vacates the judgment below and remands this case for further proceedings. Joseph Fischer was charged with violating §1512(c)(2) by corruptly obstructing “a proceeding before Congress, specifically, Congress’s certification of the Electoral College vote.” App. 183. That official proceeding plainly used certain records, documents, or objects—including, among others, those relating to the electoral votes themselves. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 65–67. And it might well be that Fischer’s conduct, as alleged here, involved the impairment (or the attempted impairment) of the availability or integrity of things used during the January 6 proceeding “in ways other than those specified in (c)(1).” Ante, at 8. If so, then Fischer’s prosecution under §1512(c)(2) can, and should, proceed. That issue remains available for the lower courts to determine on remand.

Barrett Dissenting with Sotomayor, Kagan Joining

There is no getting around it: Section 1512(c)(2) is an expansive statute. Yet Congress, not this Court, weighs the “pros and cons of whether a statute should sweep broadly or narrowly.” United States v. Rodgers, 466 U. S. 475, 484 (1984). Once Congress has set the outer bounds of liability, the Executive Branch has the discretion to select particular cases to prosecute within those boundaries. By atextually narrowing §1512(c)(2), the Court has failed to respect the prerogatives of the political branches. Cf. ante, at 15. I respectfully dissent.

---

SCOTUS only answered a question of narrowing the obstruction charges against those arrested for the J6 protest. SCOTUS was not in any form or fashion sked to determine the guilt of the participants nor address the illegal actions of the FBI embedding agents and contractors into the J6 Crowd nor decide the legitimacy of the (Un)select J6 Committee, especially in light of all hearing and all supporting documents were destroyed shortly after being decommissioned.

We provide the following for your information under the auspices of ‘know thy enemy’. We disagree with their consensus and fully understand their biased perspectives…

Press Release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Columbia (Merrick Garland)

            The following data points are made available in order to provide context with respect to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Fischer v. United States.

• The United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia has charged roughly 1,427 individuals with federal crimes arising from alleged criminal conduct committed at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. In more than 82 percent of those cases—involving approximately 1,178 individuals—the defendants were either never charged with or not convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), the statute at issue in Fischer.  Today’s decision has no bearing on those cases.

• Of the approximately 249 remaining cases, there are zero cases where a defendant was charged only with 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2). In other words, in every case potentially impacted by the Fischer decision, the defendant faced other criminal charges—felonies, misdemeanors, or both—for illegal conduct related to the Capitol Breach.

• Today’s decision will most significantly impact a narrow band of cases: those where the only felony for which a defendant was convicted and sentenced was 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2).  In total, approximately 52 individuals have been convicted and sentenced on that charge and no other felony; of those individuals, only 27 are currently serving a sentence of incarceration—less than 2 percent of all charged cases arising from the Capitol Breach.

DOJ Data Reveals SCOTUS’s Narrowing of J6 Obstruction Charges Will Have Minimal Impact

- JustSecurity.org

OUR NOTE: The key here is only DOJ data is used, making it very biased. Just Security tends to be biased as well - a gander at their advisory board is all you need to know.

The data about the J6 cases reveal the following:

1. Very few cases are likely to be materially affected by the Supreme Court ruling in Fischer v. United States.

Approximately a quarter of the January 6th defendants (24%) were charged with Section 1512(c)(2) (NPR database). However, only 26 of these defendants have been (or were scheduled to be) sentenced solely for a violation of 1512(c)(2). That’s because only 26 defendants pleaded guilty exclusively to 1512(c)(2) and no other crime; and all other guilty pleas and guilty verdicts after trial included additional federal crimes beyond 1512(c)(2).

Moreover, that does not mean that these 26 go scot free.

First, for those who pleaded guilty to a 1512 charge (the 26 who pleaded solely to 1512(c)(2) and an additional 22 who pleaded to 1512(c)(2) and additional crimes, for a total of 48), they did so pursuant to a plea agreement that specifically contemplated the possibility of 1512(c)(2) being vacated. The agreement provides that in the event the 1512 conviction following the guilty plea is vacated, the defendant may be prosecuted for the other crimes that the Justice Department initially brought against them, but agreed not to pursue so long as the 1512(c)(2) charge was not vacated. (The precise plea language is quoted below.)

Second, for those who were found guilty after trial of a 1512(c)(2) charge (a total of 125 cases), every defendant has also been found guilty of other charges. Those other charges are unaffected by the Fischer decision. That said, those defendants may need to be resentenced if the 1512(c)(2) charge may have resulted in a higher sentence. But, upon resentencing, judges may still take into account a defendant’s wrongful conduct reflected in the allegations of a 1512(c)(2) violation, even though the conviction for such an offense will be excluded from the advisory guideline calculation. As noted above, Fischer may also permit these defendants to be tried for a 1512(c)(2) offense under the new Fischer standard.

To view the Data on Existing J6 Defendants section of the linked source, click the button below and scroll down to the said section…

The DOJ misrepresented facts to SCOTUS during the Oral Arguments…

Oral Arguments of Fisher v United States Exposes Misrepresentations Affecting Sentencing of J6 Defendants

Shipwreckedcrew’s Port-O-Call focuses on the misrepresentations in downplaying the sentencing realities in the J6 cases during the oral argument given before SCOTUS on April 16th. Only a preview is provided but enough so to get you thinking. A 7-day free trial is offered if you want to verify if a paid membership is worth your money.

Shipwreckedcrew’s Port-O-Call is maintained by Bill Shipley who served 22+ years as a federal prosecutor and 8 years in private practice; his pronouns "Me/I/Sir/Your Grace/"Dickhead" (from his wife).

This article is about the exchange of sentences imposed on January 6 defendants who have been convicted of violating Sec. 1512(c)(2), and the duplicity of the Solicitor General on the subject when she tried to “pour cold water” on concerns expressed by multiple Justices over the use of “20 year felony” to address actions by defendants on that day.

The Damnable Lie Told To The Supreme Court By DOJ's Solicitor General During Oral Argument in Fischer v. United States

Oral Arguments 16 April 2024

Oral Argument in PDF form is available here (will open in our online library):