Supreme Court decision on January 6 rioters case | CNN Politics (2024)

The Supreme Court on Friday limited the power of prosecutors to pursue obstruction charges against those whorioted at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, narrowing a law that could have tacked years onto the sentences ofhundreds of defendants.

The decision also has implications for former President Donald Trump, who was charged with the same crime — though that impact appears to be more limited than some initially predicted.

Here are some key takeaways from the decision:

Charges against Trump are likely not affected: Even before the court’s decision was handed down Friday, Special Counsel Jack Smith made clear that the obstruction charges against Capitol rioters were based on different circ*mstances than the obstruction charge involved in Trump’s federal election interference case.

Smith has argued in court filings that the indictment’s allegations against Trump, particularly regarding the fraudulent electors plot, represent a far more sweeping case.

The Supreme Court’s opinion did not address the fake electors scheme specifically. But Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, nodded to the possibility that the obstruction statute would be violated “by creating false evidence – rather than altering incriminating evidence.”

The likely best-case scenario, an adviser to Trump’s legal team told CNN, is that the new ruling weakens the obstruction charges against Trump, rather than prompting the charge to be dismissed.

Trump celebrates anyway and looks to immunity ruling: Politically, though, the former president — who has frequently sought to undercut the criminal justice system — appeared eager to frame the decision as a major loss for the Justice Department.

Trump called the decision a “BIG WIN!” on social media.

What is far more important for Trump is the Supreme Court’s pending decision on his argument for sweeping immunity on charges for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. That decision is expected to land Monday.

Hundreds of other charges are pending: The opinion gives the Justice Department room to refile cases against at least some rioters accused of obstruction because it will continue to allow them to prosecute in situations in which people attempted to impact “documents” and “other things” used in an official proceeding.

Approximately 249 cases involving the obstruction charge are pending – and in every one of those cases, the defendant faces other charges, including felonies and misdemeanors. About 52 people were convicted and sentenced with the obstruction charge as their only felony. Of those, 27 people are currently incarcerated, according to prosecutors.

Jackson joins with the court’s conservatives, Barrett with the liberals: The Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer v. US was 6-3, but the vote didn’t break entirely along traditional ideological lines. Instead, liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson sided with Roberts, while conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote an opinion joined by two liberals.

Read a full breakdown of the Supreme Court’s January 6 ruling.

Donald Trump’s legal team expects to file motions based on Friday’s Supreme Court decision in an attempt to get obstruction counts against the former president dismissed in the federal 2020 election subversion case, according to a source familiar with the matter.

While legal experts say they are unlikely to be successful, the source says the team will still exercise that option on behalf of the client.

Special counsel Jack Smith is expected to focus on parts of the high court’s opinion that support the idea that Trump’s conduct is categorically different from the January 6 rioters, and could still be covered under this obstruction law.

Smith’s office has declined to comment.

The Trump team still hopes Friday’s ruling could help them keep out key pieces of evidence at a possible trial, including videos of violence that day.

But the bigger case for Trump’s team and their strategy comes Monday, when the Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling on his claim of immunity from criminal prosecution.

Remember: The special counsel case on Trump’s 2020 election interference is only one of four criminal cases the former president faces while running again for president.

In this sketch from court, D. John Sauer argues before the US Supreme Court over whether former President Donald Trump is immune from criminal prosecution in Washington, DC, on Thursday, April 25.

As the Supreme Court limited obstruction charges against January 6 rioters on Friday, the Supreme Court still has to decide on former President Donald Trump’s claim of absolute immunity. The final opinions from the court will be released on Monday, including the immunity ruling.

The case involves Trump’s appeal for immunity from special counsel Jack Smith’s election subversion charges, whichlanded at the Supreme Courtlate in the term and instantly overshadowed most of the docket.

Trump argued that without immunity, presidents would be hamstrung in office, always fearful of being second guessed by a zealous prosecutor after leaving the White House. That position appeared to have some purchase on the conservative Supreme Court during oral arguments in April, though it didn’t appear Trump would be able to get Smith’s case tossed entirely.

The immunity case, appears likely to come down to whether Trump’s post-election actions were “official” – that is, steps he was taking as president – or whether they were “private,” which would not likely receive immunity.

An appeals court in Washington sided against Trump.

One of the most recognizable figures in the crowdwas a man in his 30s with a painted face, fur hat and a helmet with horns. The protester, Jacob Chansley — known by followers as the QAnon Shaman — quickly became a symbol of the bizarre and frightening spectacle. In the months leading up to the riot, Chansley had been a regular presence at pro-Trump protests in Arizona, including demonstrations outside the Maricopa County vote-counting center. In November 2021,he was sentenced to 41 months in prisonfor his role in the Capitol riot.

Trial-level judges in the Washington, DC, District Court are already reopening January 6 rioter proceedings less than two hours after the Supreme Court ruling.

The federal judge who sentenced Guy Reffitt, who was the first January 6 rioter convicted by a jury, said in an order Friday afternoon he will get a date to be re-sentenced in her court. That judge, Dabney Friedrich, has told other defendants they too may be re-sentenced, according to updates in the court records.

Reffitt had brought a gun to the Capitol and received a sentence of seven years in prison, which he is still serving.

In another case, the Justice Department indicated last week that a Supreme Court decision in the Fischer case may prompt them to want to re-try one of the most high-profile January 6 defendants, Jacob Chansley, known as the “QAnon Shaman.”

Chansley pleaded guilty—without a trial—to the felony obstruction charge and was sentenced to 41 months in prison in 2021. He was not accused of violence, and though he egged on other rioters with a bullhorn while carrying a flag pole with a spear and wearing horns, Chansley maintained he was largely peaceful.

Chansley has finished serving his prison time, but still is making requests in the court related to his case and has two years left of court-supervised release to serve.

Not only did Chansley’s image become a defining one among Trump supporters storming the US Capitol, he also was one of the earliest and few rioter cases the Justice Department brought where obstruction of justice was the most significant felony count.

The Justice Department said in a filing in Chansley’s case last week the Supreme Court decision in Fischer “may create a situation where evidence must be preserved and Defendant tried” again. The DOJ didn’t explain further.

Chansley is currently trying to get back into his possession property federal authorities seized from him, that was used in his case. But prosecutorssaidthey need to hold onto the property still, because of the possibility of a new trial.

His defense lawyer has written in court recently his case is closed and final.

Attorney Jeffrey Green, representing January 6 defendant Joseph Fischer, argues before the US Supreme Court.

January 6 defendants who are still serving prison time or awaiting trial are likely to go back to their judges now that the Supreme Court has ruled on an obstruction charged used in some of the Capitol riot cases.

Several convicted of obstruction previously tried to shorten their prison sentences after the Supreme Court took up the Joseph Fischer case, but only some were successful.

The DC US attorney’s office said Friday that about 249 cases involved the obstruction charge – and in every one of those cases, the defendant faced other charges, including felonies and misdemeanors. About 52 people were convicted and sentenced with the obstruction charge as their only felony. Of those, 27 people are currently incarcerated, according to prosecutors.

Fischer’s attorney, Jeffrey Green of Green Law Chartered, told CNN that any petition brought by January 6 defendants over the obstruction charge will be “an uphill fight.”

The Justice Department has taken steps for months in its prosecutions of rioters to shore up the obstruction cases against them, in case of a ruling like the Supreme Court’s on Friday.

In nearly all of the trials of January 6 defendants who faced obstruction counts, the Justice Department showed evidence to the juries of the electoral vote boxes being removed from the Senate floor — potentially a prosecutorial move that will provide a protection of some of the prosecutions.

They called as a witness in some trials a lawyer for the Senate who watched over the boxes in the chamber as the rioters breached the building. The boxes were removed from the Senate floor when the chamber recessed.

Former President Donald Trump walks offstage after speaking at a campaign rally at the Liacouras Center on June 22 in Philadelphia.

Former President Donald Trump declared a “BIG WIN!” in a post on his Truth Social platform Friday, after the Supreme Court’s ruling thatthe Justice Department overstepped by charging hundreds of people who rioted at the Capitol on January 6 with obstruction.

A campaign spokesperson told CNN his post is their “official response.”

Trump also shared a quote from conservative George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley.

“Jonathan Turley: ‘For Trump, this rips the wings of the plane that Jack Smith has been trying to take off in D.C.’” Trump posted.

Trump’s team is still reviewing the decision and how it may impact special counsel Jack Smith’s January 6 case against the former president. However, his advisers’ initial reaction is that the court’s ruling further bolsters their longstanding claim that the Justice Department has gone too far in its charges against Trump and his allies, sources familiar with their thinking tell CNN.

More context: While Trump’s team is hailing Friday’s ruling, it’s possible the Supreme Court decision will impact January 6 rioters more than the former president.

The special counsel alleges that Trump’s obstruction of the congressional proceeding is much more sweeping than the rioters’ — dating back to a scheme that began on Election Day and involving the use of bogus electoral certificates sent in from states around the country.

Smith contemplated the possibility that the court would narrow the obstruction charge this way, and said in court filings that his use of the charge would still survive under such a ruling.

CNN’s Tierney Sneed contributed reporting to this post.

“On behalf of Mr. Fischer, our team is ecstatic,” said Jeffrey Green, lawyer for plaintiff Joseph Fischer who is accused of breaking into the US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Green said that he would be watching the ruling’s effect on other prosecutions but said “we are happy to have driven this criminal statute back to its proper evidence tampering turf.”

During oral arguments in April, Green argued that Fischer’s obstruction charge was meant to prevent evidence tampering and did not apply in the case of the Jan. 6 insurrection. The majority of justices agreed with this argument.

US Attorney General Merrick Garland at the Department on Justice on November 30, 2022 in Washington, DC.

Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement that he was “disappointed” by the Supreme Court’s decision in the January 6 rioters case but added that the Department of Justice “will take appropriate steps to comply” with the ruling.

Garland said the DOJ will continue to “use all available tools to hold accountable those criminally responsiblefor theJanuary 6attack on our democracy.”

“The vast majority ofthe more than 1,400 defendants charged for their illegal actionson January 6will not beaffectedbythis decision,” he added.

Approximately 249 cases involving the obstruction chargeat the center of Friday’s rulingare pending, according to federal prosecutors. About 52 people were convicted and sentenced with the obstruction charge as their only felony. Of those, 27 people are currently incarcerated, according to prosecutors.

Supreme Court Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Though Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the court’s majority opinion in full, she wrote separately to stress that Congress had not meant to create a broad obstruction statute when it enacted the law at issue in the case.

When she was a trial-level judge in Washington, DC, before joining the high court, Jackson had overseen a handful of criminal cases against rioters as the DOJ was making its first batches of arrests after the deadly attack.

“Conversely, there is no indication whatsoever that Congress intended to create a sweeping, all-purpose obstruction statute,” she wrote.

“Here, it beggars belief that Congress would have inserted a breathtakingly broad, first-of-its kind criminal obstruction statute (accompanied by a substantial 20-year maximum penalty) in the midst of a significantly more granular series of obstruction prohibitions without clarifying its intent to do so – not in the text of the provision itself, nor in the surrounding statutory context, nor in any statement issued during the enactment process,” Jackson wrote in her concurrence.

Protesters storm into the US Capitol in Washington, DC, on January 6, 2021.

Special counsel Jack Smith alleges that Donald Trump’s obstruction of the congressional proceeding is much more sweeping than the rioters’ — dating back to a scheme that began on Election Day and involving the use of bogus electoral certificates sent in from states around the country.

Still, Trump’s legal team is likely to attempt to use the Supreme Court opinion this morning in Fischer to challenge parts of the case, if and when it returns to the trial-level judge.

The special counsel contemplated the possibility that the Supreme Court would narrow the obstruction charge this way and said in court filings submitted in the immunity case that his use of the charge would still survive under such a ruling. Smith pointed specifically to the indictment’s allegations about the fake electors scheme.

“Today’s ruling will have consequences for many of the January 6 prosecutions, but probably not for the charges against former President Trump,” said Steve Vladeck, a CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law.

“Unlike the defendant in the case before the Court, the charges against Trump relate specifically to trying to alter the evidence — the electoral votes — that Congress was considering in the January 6 Joint Session. So whereas at least some defendants will likely get re-sentencing (or even new trials), Trump’s case can go forward — assuming the Court holds on Monday that he isn’t entirely immune.”

Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote a dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, wrote a dissent that disagreed with how the court was interpreting the statute.

“Killing a person with the intent to prevent the production of a record in an official proceeding constitutes conduct that impairs the availability of a record for an official proceeding. Using physical force against a person to influence testimony in an official proceeding counts as impairing the integrity of ‘other things’ used in an official proceeding.”

“Once Congress has set the outer bounds of liability, the Executive Branch has the discretion to select particular cases to prosecute within those boundaries. By atextually narrowing §1512(c)(2), the Court has failed to respect the prerogatives of the political branches.”

In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts argued that if Congress intended for prosecutors to be able to tack 20-year prison sentences on to the kind of conduct witnessed on January 6, 2021, lawmakers would have said so.

“Nothing in the text or statutory history suggests that (the law) is designed to impose up to 20 years’ imprisonment on essentially all defendants who commit obstruction of justice in any way and who might be subject to lesser penalties under more specific obstruction statutes,” Roberts wrote.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Justice Department overstepped by charging hundreds of people whorioted at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, with obstruction.

Read the full decision below:

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts at the US Capitol in January 2020.

In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts barely mentions the attack on the US Capitol that precipitated the charges and the attack, focusing heavily on a detailed discussion of the text of the law.

Roberts said that the breach “of the Capitol caused members of Congress to evacuate the chambers and delayed the certification process.”

Much of the case and the opinion Friday focused on the word “otherwise” in the law.

Roberts said that the court’s approach tracked “the common sense intuition that Congress would not ordinarily introduce a general term that renders meaningless the specific text that accompanies it.”

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for a 6-3 majority that included mostly conservatives and one liberal, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed a dissenting opinion that was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that the Justice Department overstepped by charging hundreds of people whorioted at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, with obstruction in a decision that could force prosecutors to reopen at least some of those cases.

At the same time, the high court ruled that the charge could be filed against the rioters if prosecutors are able to demonstrate they were attempting not just to push their way into the building but rather to stop the arrival of certificates used to count electoral votes and certify the results of the election.

The high court’s decision means that special counsel Jack Smith is likely to continue to pursue the same charge against former President Donald Trump.

The Supreme Court has issued an opinion on a case related to January 6 rioters seeking to shorten sentences.

CNN reporters are going through the opinion and will share the latest updates.

Pro-Trump supporters storm the US Capitol following a rally with President Donald Trump on January 6, 2021 in Washington, DC.

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority indicated in April that it may toss out acharge prosecutors have lodged against hundreds of peoplewho took part in the January 6, 2021, riot on the US Capitol, a decision that could force the Justice Department to reopen some of those cases.

During over 90 minutes of arguments, most justices signaled concern with how the Justice Department is using the law enacted by Congress more than two decades ago in response to theEnronaccounting scandal. Critics claimed the felony charge, which carries a prison sentence of up to 20 years, was intended to prevent evidence tampering – not an insurrection in support of a president who lost reelection.

The court’s decision could have significant ramifications for some 350 people who were charged with “obstructing” an official proceeding for their part in the Capitol attack – including more than 100 people who have already been convicted and received prison sentences.

The high court’s ruling could also affect the federal election subversion criminal case pending against former President Donald Trump, who was also charged with the obstruction crime.

Here are key takeaways from the oral arguments.