The case addresses a portion of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 pertaining to the obstruction of official proceedings.
Former Pennsylvania police officer Joseph W. Fischer (R) was charged with assaulitng a federal officer, inside the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. (U.S. Department of Justice/Screenshot via The Epoch Times)
By Sam Dorman
The Supreme Court is set to hear oral argument over the Justice Department’s (DOJ) use of an Enron-era obstruction law to charge individuals at the U.S. Capitol breach on Jan. 6, 2021.
Their decision in the case—Fischer v. United States—is thought to bear on the DOJ’s prosecution of former President Donald Trump in the federal election case, as well as hundreds of other Jan. 6 prosecutions.
On April 16, the justices will review whether a section of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 applies to several Jan. 6 defendants, including Joseph Fischer, a former Pennsylvania police officer who entered the Capitol on that day.
Mr. Fischer claims he was not “part of the mob that forced the electoral certification to stop.” According to DOJ’s brief to the justices, Mr. Fischer and the other defendants—Edward Jacob Lang and Garrett Miller—were charged with counts of assaulting a federal officer.
DOJ alleged that they violated a portion of Sarbanes-Oxley—18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c)(2)—which has contested language barring the obstruction of an official proceeding.
Section 1512(c) reads: “Whoever corruptly 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 otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”
Wording of the Law
Much of the debate between the DOJ and Mr. Fischer surrounds how to interpret the law, which arose from the Enron accounting scandal in 2001. Mr. Fischer told the justices Section 1512(c)(2), which begins with the word “otherwise” and ends with “do so,” related to the preceding sentence in a way that showed the charge was inappropriate for his case.
The case reached the Supreme Court after a district court judge in Washington dismissed the charge only to have it restored by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. The appellate court ruled that the provision starting with “otherwise” served as a “catch-all” that covered obstructive behavior not included in the prior section.
Judge Florence Pan, who authored the lead opinion, said: “The district court held that the statute does not apply to assaultive conduct, committed in furtherance of an attempt to stop Congress from performing a constitutionally required duty. We disagree and reverse.”
Mr. Fischer countered that the appellate court’s ruling was too broad and that the term “otherwise” should be read in connection with the prior provision. His petition to the court argued that “the use of Section 1512(c)(2) outside evidence impairment crimes is an extraordinary and unprecedented extension of the statute’s reach.”
Attorneys previously told The Epoch Times that Mr. Fischer seemed poised to win at the nation’s highest court. It’s unclear, however, how the court’s ruling will impact President Trump’s Washington trial.
Veteran Supreme Court observer Curt Levey, president of the conservative Committee for Justice, said that the justices’ ruling probably will be of help to the Jan. 6 protesters but that he’s not sure how much help it will be to President Trump, who would still face other charges and must still face the voters in the 2024 election.
“At the end of the day, Jack Smith is still going to get his show trial and perhaps even a conviction,” he said.
Another attorney, David Gelman, said that a ruling for Mr. Fischer “would really kill Jack Smith’s case against President Trump.”
Oral argument in Mr. Fischer’s case comes roughly a week before the Supreme Court is set to hear President Trump’s immunity appeal on April 25. While Mr. Fischer’s case could upend one of the charges against President Trump, the former president has argued that presidential immunity shielded him from all of the DOJ’s charges against him in Washington.
The allegations, he said, fell under his official duties as president and, therefore, should be dismissed even if they concern purportedly criminal acts.
Matthew Vadum contributed to this report.