The U.S. Supreme Court last week issued a key decision in a Jan. 6-related case, and the manner in which the votes were distributed came as something of a surprise to many.
As Breitbart reports, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson -- nominated by President Joe Biden and long heralded by liberal Democrats -- aligned with conservative colleagues in a ruling that could result in the withdrawal of obstruction charges against many Capitol protesters.
In the case at issue, the high court, by a vote of 6-3, narrowed the permissible interpretation of a federal obstruction statute under which numerous Jan. 6 protestors had been charged.
As a result, a significant number of cases stemming from that fateful day are not at least in partial limbo, including that of former President Donald Trump.
Though Jan. 6 has long been a political hot potato, court watchers noted with great interest the fact that the outcome in this case did not break down on traditional partisan lines.
Justice Jackson, known for her liberal leanings, joined Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh in the majority opinion finding that the government must prosecute based on the actual statutory text as written, not the overly expansive interpretation they believe was used against numerous Jan. 6 defendants.
In the case at issue, Joseph Fischer faced an obstruction count as a result of his participation in the Capitol unrest stemming from an Enron-era statute providing for prison time for a defendant who “alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object” in order to hinder its “availability for use in an official proceedings.”
The use of this statute against Jan. 6 demonstrators long drew criticism from some corners, given that it would presumably permit felony charges to be lodged against even peaceful protestors, and comparisons were drawn to those who demonstrated in Senate buildings to advocate against the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh, none of which had this statute used against them.
Though many of those who supported her ascent to the high court likely believe that Jan. 6 demonstrators should be prosecuted under any and all possible theories, Jackson took a principled stance on the matter.
Jackson penned a concurrence to the Roberts-written opinion that explained her reasoning, citing precedent stating that “In the United States of America, 'men are not subjected to criminal punishment because their conduct offends our patriotic emotions or thwarts a general purpose sought to be effected by specific commands which they have not disobeyed. Nor are they to be held guilty of offenses which the statutes have omitted, though by inadvertence, to define and condemn.”
Though she acknowledged the great offense caused to many by the unrest of Jan. 6, Jackson – herself a former federal defender – maintained that “this Court's task is to determine what conduct is proscribed by the criminal statute that has been invoked as a basis for the obstruction charge at issue here,” agreeing that in this instance, the defendant's conduct was not.
As surprising as Jackson's stance may have been to some, perhaps equally unexpected was Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett's decision to side with left-wing Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor her written dissent.
Though Barrett said that the statute at issue was admittedly not drafted for use against those involved in Jan. 6-like protests, she added that “statutes often go further than the problem that inspired them” and believed that Fischer's conduct could rightfully fall under the provisions of the law in question.
Less surprising, however, was Attorney General Merrick Garland's response to the ruling, in which he said he was “disappointed” in that he believes the decision “limits an important federal statute that the Department has sought to use to ensure that those most responsible for that attack face appropriate consequences.”
