What Fischer v. United States Means For Donald Trump
On Tuesday, April 16, 2024, the Supreme Court began to hear arguments for a case that could determine whether or not the rioters of January 6th, 2021, and former President Donald J. Trump can be charged with Federal Obstruction. Two of the four charges against Trump in the federal election interference case are based on a provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Prosecutors have also charged hundreds of rioters who stormed the Capitol on January 6th under the provision, stating they had obstructed an official proceeding. According to The New York Times, the specific clauses, Sections 1512(c)(1) and 1512(c)(2), “(1) Penalizes anyone who corruptly alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object so as to prevent it from being used in an official proceeding or otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or (2) attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.” The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to such prosecutions from Joseph W. Fischer, who was accused of breaching the Capitol during the January 6th insurrection and of assaulting police officers. Trump is not involved in the Fischer case; however, the Supreme Court’s ruling, expected by June, could severely weaken key parts of the prosecution of the former president.
Both parties are contesting the meaning of the term “corruptly,” but it limits the scope of the law. The lead opinion of a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declined to define the term, but a concurring opinion said it required proof that “the defendant not only knew he was obtaining an ‘unlawful benefit’ but that his ‘objective’ or ‘purpose’ was to obtain that unlawful benefit.” Additionally, the two sides dispute whether the part of the provision that refers to “a record, document or other object” limits the scope of the second part, which concerns official proceedings. A dissenting judge wrote that the second part encompasses “only acts that impair the integrity or availability of evidence.” In a Supreme Court brief, the government said blocking lawmakers from certifying the state election results would fulfill even a strict reading of the law.
However, there have been disagreements among the courts on what the exact definition of the statute is. Last year, Judge Carl J. Nichols of the Federal District Court in Washington granted Fischer’s motion to dismiss stating that the defendant was required to take “ some action with respect to a document, record or other object” in order for this particular law to be enacted. Then, a three-judge panel (in a divided decision) reversed Nichols’ ruling, asserting that the statute “applies to all forms of corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding.” Finally, the case has been brought to the Supreme Court as of this March. Additionally, according to The New York Times, some lawyers have an issue with their clients being prosecuted under this law stating “that many were not acting ‘corruptly,’ as the law requires because they believed they were protesting a stolen election.”
But what would the implications be for Mr. Trump if the court ruled in favor of Mr. Fischer? For Trump, it would mean that he now has a new way of challenging one of the many allegations against him. Particularly, he could use this ruling as a way to bolster his claim that he did not incite or encourage the destruction and attack on Congress on January 6th. Additionally, the decision of the Supreme Court regarding the Fischer case could make or break Trump’s re-election platform by either igniting support from his voter base or by doing the exact opposite and helping to show them the error of Mr. Trump’s actions on January 6th.
By Leah Medeiros