A divided panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a recent ruling, delved into the federal obstruction statute’s nuances, establishing a landmark precedent for cases stemming from the January 6, 2021, events at the U.S. Capitol. The ruling, issued Friday, October 20, 2023, by a majority of 2-1, centered on the interpretation of the term “corruptly” in the federal obstruction law, bearing profound implications for numerous defendants, most notably former President Donald Trump.
The crux of the legal battle hinged on whether participants in the Capitol breach acted “corruptly” when attempting to obstruct Congress’ proceedings, specifically during the certification of the 2020 election results. A narrower interpretation of this term could have posed significant challenges for Special Counsel Jack Smith, particularly in Trump’s obstruction charge.
The judges’ decision rejected attempts by certain January 6 defendants to narrow the scope of the federal obstruction law. Notably, the ruling upheld the conviction of Thomas Robertson, a former Virginia police officer, suggesting that efforts to install the losing presidential candidate could constitute grounds for an obstruction conviction.
This ruling carries implications far beyond the immediate case and is likely to face appeals, either before the full bench of the D.C. Circuit or the Supreme Court. Despite potential challenges ahead, this ruling stands as a pivotal moment with wide-ranging consequences for a multitude of January 6 prosecutions, including those involving Donald Trump.
The federal “obstruction of an official proceeding” statute, a felony carrying a maximum sentence of 20 years, has been a central charge against Capitol breach defendants aiming to disrupt the certification of the 2020 election results. One of the primary challenges in this legal landscape has been defining what constitutes “obstructing” Congress.
While the panel of judges differed in their conclusions, they generally agreed that constitutionally protected actions, such as lobbying and peaceful protests aimed at influencing congressional policy debates, should not warrant 20-year felony charges. Judge Florence Pan, in the majority opinion, outlined that most forms of lobbying and peaceful protest would not meet the “corrupt” requirement they defined. Conversely, Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, in her dissent, argued that their definition of “corruptly” might encompass such actions.
The judges universally agreed that the conduct falling within the “corruptly” standard is broadly defined. The recent ruling suggests that defendants involved in other felonies on January 6 could be convicted of the obstruction of Congress charge without requiring prosecutors to prove specific knowledge of that day’s congressional proceedings.
Judge Pan pointed out that attempts to certify Trump as the winner, even when he had not won, could potentially be considered a “professional” benefit, a perspective contested by Judge Henderson, who maintained that such reasoning could be used to apply the obstruction statute.
Cases accepted for en banc review by the D.C. Circuit are infrequent, involving rearguments of cases before all 11 of the appeals court’s active judges. An en banc review nullifies the three-judge panel’s decision. It remains uncertain whether this case will proceed to such a review. However, notable concerns expressed by Judges Henderson, Greg Katsas, and Justin Walker, all appointed by Trump, hint at possible future legal battles in this intricate and politically charged arena.
