Fischer v. United States

For the Rehnquist Court case, see Fischer v. United States (2000).

Fischer v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 16, 2024
Full case name	Joseph W. Fischer v. United States
Docket no.	23-5572
Argument	Oral argument
Case history
Prior	Dismissed charge of obstruction, 1:21-cr-234-CJN (D.D.C. 2022); reversed, 64 F.4th 329 (D.C. Cir. 2023)
Questions presented
Did the D.C. Circuit err in construing 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) (“Witness, Victim, or Informant Tampering”), which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, to include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence?
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Clarence Thomas · Samuel Alito Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan Neil Gorsuch · Brett Kavanaugh Amy Coney Barrett · Ketanji Brown Jackson
Laws applied
Sarbanes-Oxley Act

Fischer v. United States, (Docket No. 23-5572), is a pending United States Supreme Court case about the proper use of the felony charge of obstructing an official proceeding against participants in the January 6 United States Capitol attack.

Background

See also: Criminal proceedings in the January 6 United States Capitol attack and Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (election obstruction case)

On January 6, 2021, Joseph W. Fischer attended the Stop the Steal rally at the Ellipse in Washington, D.C.. Prosecutors said that Fischer had a physical encounter with police at the Capitol, urged on rioters during the Capitol attack, and said that he wanted to go "to war" and take "democratic Congress to the gallows". Fischer's attorneys said that Fischer entered the Capitol building at around 3:25 p.m., after it had already been breached and Congress had already recessed, and exited the building about four minutes later.

The felony charge of obstructing an official proceeding has been used to charge more than 300 individuals in connection with the January 6 Capitol attack, and has resulted in more than 150 convictions and guilty pleas. Among those charged with the provision include former President Donald Trump. The criminal statute covering "whoever corruptly alters, destroys, mutilates or conceals a record, document or other object...or otherwise obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding" had been created by the 2002 Sarbanes–Oxley Act in response to the Enron scandal, when accountants shredding crucial documents did so without being in violation of any laws. Before its utilization in the January 6 charges, prosecutors had never applied the statute in cases that did not involve evidence tampering.

District court

Fischer was prosecuted for obstructing an official proceeding of Congress, as well as assaulting a police officer and disorderly conduct in the Capitol. Fischer and other January 6 defendants have argued that prosecution under the Sarbanes–Oxley Act should not apply to their circumstances, as they did not engage in actions in a manner similar to the Enron scandal which spawned the act's creation.

In March 2022, District Judge Carl J. Nichols dismissed obstruction charges against three January 6 defendants, including Fischer, ruling that prosecutors had improperly separated the portion of the law forbidding obstruction of an official proceeding from the aforementioned evidence-tampering provision regarding actions against a "document, record, or other object". Nichols' ruling was not binding on other judges, and several other defendants have attempted to similarly argue that Sarbanes–Oxley does not apply to them before other judges without success. Nichols' rulings were subsequently appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Court of Appeals

In April 2023, the D.C. Circuit reversed Nichols in a 2–1 ruling, finding that Sarbanes-Oxley was broad enough to cover the conduct of Fischer and the other two defendants. It held that the statute covered "all forms of corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding", other than actions already covered by the evidence-tampering provision. Fischer also argued that he did not act with "corrupt intent", which was not addressed immediately by the D.C. Circuit. The court rejected this argument in a subsequent January 6 related case, United States v. Robertson 86 F.4th 355 (D.C. Cir. 2023), holding that "corruptly" in this context means acting with criminal intent, without an additional requirement of personal gain.

Supreme Court

Fischer appealed the D.C. Circuit's ruling to the Supreme Court in September 2023, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear his appeal in December. The Supreme Court did not take up the cases of the other two defendants. Multiple federal judges have delayed cases or released defendants charged with obstruction of an official proceeding pending the Supreme Court's ruling. Oral arguments in the case were heard on April 16, 2024.

External links

• Berris, Peter G. (March 20, 2024). Fischer v. United States: Supreme Court to Consider Federal Obstruction Provision in Capitol Breach Prosecution (Report). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved April 23, 2024.
• Doyle, Charles (November 5, 2010). Obstruction of Congress: A Brief Overview of Federal Law Relating to Interference with Congressional Activities (Report). Congressional Research Service. pp. 15–18. Archived from the original on December 30, 2023. Retrieved December 27, 2023.
• Case docket for Fischer v. United States, 23-5572, (SCOTUS); SCOTUS writ of certiorari
• SCOTUS oral arguments audio
• SCOTUS oral arguments transcript