The Supreme Court is poised to deliberate this Friday on whether to hear appeals from three key figures – Joseph Fischer, Edward Lang, and Garret Miller – charged in connection with the tumultuous events of January 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol. These individuals are seeking to dismiss charges related to obstructing the certification of President Joe Biden’s election victory, a charge that also hangs over former President Donald Trump.
NBC News reported on Friday, December 1, 2023, that the outcome of these appeals holds substantial weight, potentially molding the path of Trump’s criminal prosecution.
“The decision on these appeals carries weighty implications, potentially shaping the trajectory of Trump’s criminal prosecution,” the report highlighted.
More Read
If the Supreme Court rejects the appeals, it would uphold a lower court ruling, granting the government the authority to proceed with charges against the defendants. Conversely, if the Court opts to hear the cases, a significant delay is anticipated as oral arguments unfold, possibly extending into the Court’s current nine-month term ending in June.
Trump’s legal team may exploit the Supreme Court’s involvement to seek a delay in his election interference trial, currently scheduled for March. Former federal prosecutor Randall Eliason suggests that Trump could reasonably request a trial delay until the Supreme Court resolves these cases.
“A ruling by June would still permit the trial to precede the November election, a critical consideration given Trump’s standing as a front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination,” the report noted.
The potential strategy to delay Trump’s trial hinges on the Supreme Court’s review of appeals centered on 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2) of the U.S. Code. The defendants argue that this statute, enacted in 2002 as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, was never intended for events like January 6.
Trump’s legal team contends that applying this provision to his case stretches its intended scope, asserting that it was crafted to address accounting fraud rather than disputes over presidential election outcomes. This legal nuance could open avenues for challenging charges against not only Trump but also the other defendants.
The looming question is whether the Supreme Court’s conservative majority, historically skeptical of broad Justice Department applications of criminal statutes, will accept the appeals.
“Past cases, such as the 2015 rejection of a fisherman’s conviction under Sarbanes-Oxley law, underscore the Court’s scrutiny of expansive interpretations of statutes,” the report highlighted.
Furthermore, concerns arise about the broad application of 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2), particularly regarding the term “corruptly” and its relevance to cases involving physical acts rather than tampering with evidence. U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols initially dismissed charges against the Jan. 6 defendants, contending the law’s broad application. Still, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit later ruled in favor of the government.
The three defendants, Fischer, Lang, and Miller, present distinct cases. Fischer, a former police officer, allegedly engaged in physical altercations and encouraged rioters during the Capitol attack. Lang, charged with assaulting federal officers, claims self-defense amid the chaos. Miller, part of the rioting crowd, faces charges, including assaulting an officer.
“The Supreme Court intervention introduces complexities, especially given the prior recusal of conservative Justice Clarence Thomas in a related Jan. 6 appeal,” the report emphasized.
Thomas, with personal ties to Trump and his wife’s vocal support for overturning the 2020 election, adds layers to the legal landscape.
As the Supreme Court mulls over these appeals, the decisions made could significantly influence the trajectory of Trump’s prosecution, potentially shaping the legal landscape for other Jan. 6 defendants.
“The interplay between legal nuances, constitutional considerations, and the broader implications for the justice system underscores the complexity of the issues at hand,” the report concluded.
