SCOTUS Hears Arguments Over Jan. 6 Prosecutions

0:00

/1861

1×

Facts

• The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is considering whether federal prosecutors can charge Jan. 6 rioters under a law that prohibits manipulating a 'record, document, or other object' so it can't be used in a government proceeding, or anyone who interferes with a official proceeding.¹
• During oral arguments — which pitted US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar against Jeffrey Green, an attorney for Jan. 6 defendant Joseph Fischer — liberal and conservative justices seemed skeptical of the government's interpretation of the law.²
• Prelogar argued that to prosecute under this law, there has to be evidence that someone committed obstruction and did so 'corruptly,' adding that is why only 350 out of the 1,350 Jan. 6 defendants have been charged with obstruction.³
• The obstruction charge, which carries up to 20 years in prison, has also been laid against former Pres. Donald Trump. Lawyers for Fischer, who allegedly called for rioters to charge to the Capitol, claim the law should only apply to tampering with physical evidence.⁴
• The justices are expected to rule on the case by the end of the court's term in June. If they rule against the government, some of the federal charges against Trump could be dropped.³

Sources: ¹wsj.com, ²Washington Post, ³New York Times and ⁴NBC.

Narratives

• Pro-Trump narrative, as provided by New York Post. The government's argument began to fall apart the second Prelogar faced questions from the justices. While she claims the obstruction statute applies to Jan. 6 protesters, she then admitted that it wouldn't apply to a myriad of similar protest scenarios. The holes in Prelogar's arguments will likely haunt the Dept. of Justice as the court considers its ruling.
• Pro-Trump narrative, as provided by FOX News. The government's argument began to fall apart the second Prelogar faced questions from the justices. While she claims the obstruction statute applies to Jan. 6 protesters, she then admitted that it wouldn't apply to a myriad of similar protest scenarios. The holes in Prelogar's arguments will likely haunt the Dept. of Justice as the court considers its ruling.
• Democratic narrative, as provided by rollcall.com. The irony of 'tough-on-crime' Republicans defending violent insurrectionists is on full display. The obstruction provision was clearly written to prohibit criminals from blocking government proceedings — Joseph Fischer is on the record saying that he would and then physically attempting to do so. This case is cut and dry, and Republicans should support it if they're true to their principles.

Predictions