The recent Supreme Court ruling regarding capitol riot charges and former President Donald Trump has caused controversy. Political science expert Karen Hult highlighted the disagreement among the justices on how to interpret congressional statutory language. This disagreement led to questions about thousands of capitol riot charges, particularly those related to obstruction of justice.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Joseph Fischer, a former police officer charged with obstruction of justice for his involvement in the January 6th events. Hult explained that the Court found the Justice Department’s interpretation of the obstruction statute to be too broad. This decision affects around 27 people who have been convicted under this specific charge, while many others are still awaiting trial or sentencing.
The obstruction charge in question specifically relates to attempts to stop the certification of the election, rather than other actions like trespassing or property destruction. The Supreme Court indicated that the Justice Department overstepped in applying the statute. As a result, cases like Fischer’s will be sent back to lower courts, potentially leading to resentencing or retrials for others charged under similar circumstances.
Hult emphasized that the issue at hand is not about partisan politics but rather about the balance of power between Congress and the Department of Justice in making legal decisions. The Supreme Court’s decision raises important questions about who should be responsible for interpreting and applying the law in cases like this.