Joe Biden and his party got some bad news.
It came in one fight they can’t afford to lose.
And the Supreme Court hit Joe Biden with one devastating development.
Supreme Court Justices sound skeptical of broad interpretation of law used to charge January 6 protestors
The Supreme Court Justices finally heard oral arguments in the critical case of Fischer v. United States.
In this case, the Justices heard a challenge to the Biden administration using a law passed in the wake of the Enron financial scandal to charge hundreds of Trump supporters with obstructing an official proceeding, a felony carrying a 20-year prison sentence.
Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley law in 2001 and the obstructing an official proceeding language referred to destruction of documents and evidence.
Biden prosecutors twisted it to mean obstructing the Electoral College vote count.
No Trump supporters stood accused of destroying documents or evidence.
Right from the get go, conservatives on the court honed in on how the Biden administration used this law to only prosecute conservatives.
“There have been many violent protests that have interfered with proceedings,” Justice Thomas told Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar. “Has the government applied this provision to other protests?”
Neil Gorsuch brought up liberal protestors disrupting Supreme Court hearings and Democrat Congressman Jamal Bowman pulling a firearm last fall to prevent Congress from voting on a spending bill and wondered if Prelogar thought those were examples of obstructing an official proceeding.
“Would a sit-in that disrupts a trial or access to a federal courthouse qualify?” Justice Neil Gorsuch asked. “Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify for 20 years in federal prison?”
Prolegar argued that the Biden administration had the right to weaponize this law against its opponents, claiming it came down to judging intent.
Plain text of the law also causes problems for the Biden administration
Justices also poked holes in the Biden administration’s use of the obstruction charge due to the plain text of the law.
“Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the catchall provision must be read in context. Since the Jan. 6 defendants were not accused of altering evidence, he said, the catchall provision did not apply,” The New York Times reported.
“Tell me why I shouldn’t be concerned about the breadth of the government’s reading?” Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked.
The Supreme Court rejecting the Biden administration’s use of obstructing an official proceeding in January 6 cases portends major problems for Jack Smith’s persecution of Donald Trump.
Two of the four counts in Smith’s indictment against Trump are for obstructing an official proceeding.
The Justices could drive a stake through the heart of Smith’s case by rejecting the use of this statute to bring criminal charges for what happened on January 6.
