The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of a Capitol riot defendant, a decision that could affect hundreds of other cases, and raises the question of whether federal prosecutors went too far in enforcing a statute about “corruptly” obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding.
The high court’s ruling could affect the prosecutions of about 330 Americans who are charged under the 2002 federal statute with crimes connected to Jan. 6, 2021. The law carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison upon conviction. In some case, the obstruction charge is the only felony they face.
Of those charged, about 170 Jan. 6 defendants were convicted on the anti-obstruction charge. Some of those convicted had their sentencing delayed pending the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case.
Further, the high court’s ruling could affect part of special counsel Jack Smith’s case against former President Donald Trump, which includes this charge.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion in the case that the federal government’s use of the statute was overly broad. This accepted the defendant’s argument that obstruction must involve interference with evidence or documents, writing, “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.”
