Constitutional Law Reporter
Award
Menu
  • Home
  • US Constitution
  • Supreme Court Cases
  • Justices
    • Chief Supreme Court Justices
    • Current Supreme Court Justices
    • Past US Supreme Court Justices
  • American Biographies
    • General
    • Presidents
    • Vice-Presidents
  • Articles
    • Current Cases
    • Historical Cases
    • Impeachment
  • Videos
  • Links
Hot-Topics

May 6, 2025 | SCOTUS Rules Non-Citizens Must Challenge Removal Under Alien Enemies Act

SCOTUS to Consider Obstruction Statute at Issue in Jan. 6 Prosecutions

The U.S. Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in Fischer v. United States. The case challenges the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ interpretation of a federal statute prohibiting obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations. The law has been used in theprosecutions of numerous defendants charged in connection with the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, including former President Donald Trump.

Facts of the Case

The key issue before the Courtis whether individuals who allegedly assaulted law enforcement officers while participating in the Capitol riot can be charged with corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding, in violation of18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2). The statute provides: “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.”

Joseph Fischer was charged by indictment with various offenses arising from their alleged participation in the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, including obstructing an official proceeding under Section 1512(c)2. U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols of the District of Columbia dismissed the 1512(c)2 charges, agreeing with Fisher that the statute is exclusively directed to crimes related to documents, records, or other objects.

D.C. Circuit’s Decision

The D.C. Circuit reversed. It held that Section 1512(c)(2) encompasses all forms of obstructive conduct and is not limited to obstructive conduct with respect to “a document, record, or other object” or to “general evidence impairment.” According to D.C. Circuit Judge Florence Pan, “That natural, broad reading of the statute is consistent with prior interpretations of the words it uses and the structure it employs.”

Judge Gregory Katsas dissented. “Because my colleagues reject an evidence-focused interpretation of section 1512(c) and instead adopt the government’s all-encompassing reading, I respectfully dissent,” he wrote.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

Fisher appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that “[t]he D.C. Circuit’s opinion conflicts with this Court’s precedent, diverges from the construction of Section 1512(c) by other courts of appeal, and results—as Judge Katsas observed—in an ‘implausibly broad’ provision that is unconstitutional in many applications.” The Court granted certiorari on December 13, 2023. The justices have agreed to consider the following question:

Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit erred in construing18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, to include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence.

Oral arguments have not yet been scheduled but are likely to take place in the spring of 2024. A decision is expected by the end of the term in June.

Previous Articles

Causing Physical Harm Always Involves “Use of Force”
by DONALD SCARINCI on April 29, 2025

In Delligatti v. United States, 604 U.S. ____ (2025), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the knowing ...

Read More
SCOTUS Confirms Right to Renew Lawsuit Ater Voluntary Dismissal
by DONALD SCARINCI on April 22, 2025

In Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., 604 U.S. ____ (2025), the U.S. Supreme Court held ...

Read More
Supreme Court Rules Trademark Infringement Damages Include Only Named Defendant’s Profits
by DONALD SCARINCI on April 14, 2025

In Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers, Inc., 604 U.S. __ (2025), the U.S. SupremeCourt held...

Read More
All Posts

The Amendments

  • Amendment1
    • Establishment ClauseFree Exercise Clause
    • Freedom of Speech
    • Freedoms of Press
    • Freedom of Assembly, and Petitition
    Read More
  • Amendment2
    • The Right to Bear Arms
    Read More
  • Amendment4
    • Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
    Read More
  • Amendment5
    • Due Process
    • Eminent Domain
    • Rights of Criminal Defendants
    Read More

Preamble to the Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Read More

More Recent Posts

  • SCOTUS Clarifies Bruen in Upholding Federal Gun Law
  • SCOTUS Rules Challenged South Carolina District Is Not a Racial Gerrymander
  • Supreme Court Rejects Strict Criminal Forfeiture Timelines
  • Supreme Court Clarifies “Safety Valve” in Federal Criminal Sentencing Laws

Constitutional Law Reporter Twitter

A Twitter List by S_H_Law

Constitutional Law Reporter RSS

donald scarinci constitutional law attorney

Editor

Donald Scarinci

Managing Partner

Scarinci Hollenbeck

(201) 806-3364

Awards

Follow me

© 2018 Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC. All rights reserved.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Attorney Advertising