WASHINGTON − Three men involved in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol are asking the Supreme Court to throw out parts of their charges − and the possibility of an additional 20 years in prison − in the first criminal cases involving the 2021 insurrection to arrive the nation’s highest court.
If the justices agree to hear the appeals, the decisions could ultimately affect part of the federal indictment filed against former President Donald Trump for his attempt to overturn the 2020 election — as well as hundreds of other people charged in the deadly riot that erupted on the other side of the road. by the Supreme Court more than two years ago.
Edward Lang, Joseph Fischer and Garret Miller argue that prosecutors overstepped their authority by charging them under a federal ban on obstructing “official proceedings,” a law passed in 2002 in response to Enron’s financial meltdown. Lang documented his participation in the Jan. 6 attack on social media, and Miller drew attention after the riot for threatening Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.
More than 200 people have been charged with violating the same obstruction law in connection with Jan. 6, according to the Justice Department. One of them is the former president himself: Trump is facing charges as part of a grand jury indictment filed last month following an investigation by special prosecutor Jack Smith.
A Supreme Court ruling in favor of the defendants would undermine such claims in other cases, including Trump’s.
“Cut down dissent” or criminally prosecute a mob?
The Supreme Court has immersed itself in some legal questions surrounding the January 6 attack.
Last year, judges refused to block a House committee investigating the attack from obtaining Trump administration documents. Months later, the court rejected an emergency appeal from former Arizona Republican Party Chairwoman Kelli Ward, who was fighting a subpoena for that committee’s phone records.
But the new cases are the first involving defendants fighting criminal charges.
The Justice Department says the electoral vote count − interrupted as lawmakers fled for their safety and police fought with rioters – qualifies as an “official proceeding.” The law, prosecutors say, would cover those who lie to a grand jury or “burn a building to hide the bodies” of murder victims.
“It also includes storming the Capitol to derail a congressional proceeding,” the department told a federal appeals court last year.
But the defendants argue that the provision was intended to prevent people – such as those involved in the Enron scandal – from tampering with evidence. Fischer described the crime at issue in the cases as an “anti-destruction” law in a court document. Their actions on January 6, lawyers say, have nothing to do with that.
Furthermore, they argue, allowing prosecutors to pursue obstruction charges could lead to a slippery slope of prosecutions for less violent disruptions.
“It is no exaggeration to say that the future of the First Amendment hangs in the balance,” Lang’s lawyers told the Supreme Court in his appeal. A law “intended to combat financial fraud,” they wrote, “has been transformed into a brazen political tool to suppress dissent.”
The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment.
Lang, Miller and Fischer are not asking the Supreme Court to dismiss the other charges they face.
Most courts backed the prosecutors. Will the Supreme Court agree?
A U.S. District Court judge agreed TThe defendants, establishing that the law required them to take some action involving evidence to be charged under the Enron-era provision. Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, stood alone in this assessment: Fourteen other judges on the district court in Washington, D.C., agreed with the Justice Department’s reading of the law.
A divided appeals court in Washington overturned the ruling in April, triggering the Supreme Court appeal. The 2-1 majority included one justice nominated by President Joe Biden and one by Trump.
Several experts have predicted that the High Court is unlikely to hear the cases, at least for now. That’s partly because appellate courts like to give deference to grand juries when it comes to criminal charges and partly because so far there has been little disagreement about how to interpret the law among appellate courts.
“What they’re doing is what any defense attorney in their position would do,” said Craig Trocino, a University of Miami law professor. “That doesn’t mean they’re going to win or that they’re legally correct.”
The argument raised by Lang and Miller rests in part on what, exactly, lawmakers meant when they passed a provision prohibiting the destruction of a document “with intent to impair” an official proceeding versus another provision that prohibits obstructing or impeding “any official proceeding”. .”
In a sense, their case depends on how closely the two provisions are related to each other.
“When you look at a statute like this, for these purposes, you use the ordinary meanings of the words,” Trocino said. “I don’t think it’s so outrageously vague that it violates due process in these circumstances.”
The Supreme Court will consider whether to take up the cases later this year.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court weighs cases over Jan. 6 attack that could target Trump