In June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in the highly anticipated case of Fischer v. United States. The case involved one of the January 6th defendants charged with obstructing an official proceeding. While the Court decided that the government couldn’t charge the defendant under the applicable statute, the impact on the other January 6th defendants may be limited. More important is how the Supreme Court analyzed the relevant law.
18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2)
Fischer was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), which is titled “Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant.” Specifically, it provides:
(c) Whoever corruptly—
(1) 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
(2) 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.
The Supreme Court Ruling
The Court interpreted Section 1512(c)(2) as requiring that the defendant impair “the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or … other things used in the proceeding.” The majority reasoned that 1512(c)(1) addresses evidence tampering, such as destruction of records, and (c)(2) should be read as a continuation of that provision. Thus, 1512(c)(2) refers to additional examples of evidence tampering and does not apply to other types of actions like disrupting a Congressional vote. The case was remanded to the lower court to determine whether the defendant’s actions fell within the new interpretation of the law.
The decision was 6-3, with a concurring opinion by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who felt that the prosecution could still proceed with the charges because the defendant interfered with Congressional certification of the Electoral College vote, which relied on records and documents.
The dissenting justices’ opinion looked at the plain meaning of “otherwise,” stating that 1512(c)(2) should apply to other acts that obstruct, influence or impede an official proceeding regardless of whether they involved evidence tampering.
Impact of the Ruling
Most January 6th defendants were also charged with and/or found guilty of other felonies. For those charged under 1512(c)(2), prosecutors may still have a case for conviction. Yet, it does arguably make it more difficult for them to bring future cases under this provision.
If you have questions about how this decision may impact your situation, contact us for a consultation to discuss your matter.