Fischer v. United States

Last updated

Fischer v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued April 16, 2024
Full case nameJoseph W. Fischer v. United States
Docket no. 23-5572
Argument Oral argument
Case history
PriorDismissed 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? [1]
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.

Contents

Background

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. [1] [2]

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. [3] [4] Before its utilization in the January 6 charges, prosecutors had never applied the statute in cases that did not involve evidence tampering. [5]

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. [6] 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. [3] [4]

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. [3] [4]

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. [6] 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. [7] [8]

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. [6] The Supreme Court did not take up the cases of the other two defendants. [3] Multiple federal judges have delayed cases or released defendants charged with obstruction of an official proceeding pending the Supreme Court's ruling. [9] Oral arguments in the case were heard on April 16, 2024. [10]

Related Research Articles

Obstruction of justice, in United States jurisdictions, is an act that involves unduly influencing, impeding, or otherwise interfering with the justice system, especially the legal and procedural tasks of prosecutors, investigators, or other government officials. Common law jurisdictions other than the United States tend to use the wider offense of perverting the course of justice.

Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously overturned accounting firm Arthur Andersen's conviction of obstruction of justice in the fraudulent activities and subsequent collapse of Enron. The Court found that the jury instructions did not properly portray the law Arthur Andersen was charged with breaking. Even after the conviction was overturned, the damage to Arthur Andersen's reputation was such that it did not return as a viable business.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Eastman</span> American legal scholar (born 1960)

John Charles Eastman is an American lawyer and academic who has been criminally indicted and recommended for disbarment for attempting to keep then-president Donald Trump in office and obstruct the certification of Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 United States presidential election. Eastman has lost eligibility to practice law in California state courts, pending his appeal of the state bar judge's ruling that recommended him for disbarment. Eastman is also a co-conspirator in the federal indictment brought against Trump over his attempts to subvert the 2020 election results and prevent the certification of Biden’s election.

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." The four essential protections included are prohibitions against, for the same offense:

David Ormon Carter is a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legal affairs of Donald Trump as president</span>

The following is a list of notable lawsuits involving former United States president Donald Trump. The list excludes cases that only name Trump as a legal formality in his capacity as president, such as habeas corpus requests.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trevor N. McFadden</span> American judge (born 1978)

Trevor Neil McFadden is an American lawyer who serves as a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Previously, he was a deputy assistant attorney general in the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Carl J. Nichols</span> American judge (born 1970)

Carl John Nichols is a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and a judge of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court

<i>United States v. Joseph</i> US prosecution of a judge for allegedly helping an undocumented immigrant evade detention

United States v. Shelley M. Richmond Joseph and Wesley MacGregor (2019) was the federal criminal prosecution of a Massachusetts state court judge (Joseph) and court officer (MacGregor) for helping a state court defendant evade federal immigration authorities by allowing him to leave a court hearing through a rear door of the courthouse. Both were charged with conspiracy to obstruct justice, aiding and abetting obstruction of justice, and aiding and abetting obstruction of a federal proceeding; MacGregor was also charged with perjury during grand jury proceedings. Joseph faced 20 years in prison; MacGregor, 30 years. Both could have been fined $250,000. On September 22, 2022, the case concluded with an announcement by federal prosecutors that the obstruction charges against both Joseph and MacGregor would be dismissed and that prosecution of the perjury charge against MacGregor would be deferred. As part of the resolution, Joseph agreed to submit to disciplinary proceedings before the Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Trial of Donald Trump may refer to these legal cases against Donald John Trump in his personal capacity, which have led or are expected to lead to a trial:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dominic Pezzola</span> American

Dominic Pezzola is an American convicted felon and member of the Proud Boys who participated in the January 6 United States Capitol attack, a violent attack at the U.S. Capitol. He is best known for stealing a police riot shield and using it to break a Capitol window on January 6, 2021, making him the first rioter to breach the building. Indicted in 2021, on federal charges, he was tried in 2023 alongside Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio and his key lieutenants, Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, and Zachary Rehl. In May 2023, following a five-month jury trial, Pezzola was convicted of obstructing a congressional proceeding, assaulting a police officer, and other crimes. He was acquitted of seditious conspiracy, the most serious charge. The jury deadlocked on other charges against Pezzola, including conspiring to obstruct the counting of the electoral votes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal proceedings in the January 6 United States Capitol attack</span> List of people charged with crimes

On January 6, 2021, supporters of then President Donald Trump attacked the U.S. Capitol Building, disrupting the joint session of Congress assembled to count electoral votes to formalize Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 United States Presidential Election. By the end of the month, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had opened more than 400 case files and issued more than 500 subpoenas and search warrants related to the riot. The FBI also created a website to solicit tips from the public specifically related to the riot and were especially assisted by the crowdsourced sleuthing group Sedition Hunters. By the end of 2021, 725 people had been charged with federal crimes. That number rose to 1,000 by the second anniversary of the attack, and to 1,200 by the third anniversary, at which point over 890 people had been found guilty of federal crimes. These federal cases are handled by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia (D.C.). State cases, of which there are fewer, are handled in the D.C. Superior Court.

<i>Thompson v. Trump</i> Court case relating to January 6 Capitol attack

Thompson v. Trump is an ongoing federal civil case filed in February 2021 on behalf of U.S. House Representative Bennie Thompson against former U.S. president Donald Trump. The lawsuit claims that Trump and others conspired to incite the January 6 United States Capitol attack. In February 2022, District of Columbia U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta ruled that presidential immunity did not shield Trump from the lawsuit. In March 2022, Trump appealed Mehta's ruling to the U.S. District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals. In December 2023, the Court of Appeals upheld Mehta's ruling.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Timeline of violent incidents at the United States Capitol</span>

The United States Capitol in Washington, D.C., became the meeting place of the United States Congress when the building was initially completed in 1800. Since that time, there have been many violent and dangerous incidents, including shootings, fistfights, bombings, poisonings and a major riot.

Corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding is a felony under U.S. federal law. It was enacted as part of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 in reaction to the Enron scandal, and closed a legal loophole on who could be charged with evidence tampering by defining the new crime very broadly.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Justice Department investigation into attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election</span> Criminal investigation of Trump 2020

The United States Justice Department investigation into attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election began in early 2021 with investigations and prosecutions of hundreds of individuals who participated in the January 6, 2021 attack on the United States Capitol. By early 2022, the investigation had expanded to examine Donald Trump's inner circle, with the Justice Department impaneling several federal grand juries to investigate the attempts to overturn the election. Later in 2022, a special counsel was appointed. On August 1, 2023, Trump was indicted. The indictment also describes six alleged co-conspirators.

In 2023, four criminal indictments were filed against Donald Trump, president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. Two indictments are on state charges and two indictments are on federal charges. These indictments amount to a total of 88 felony charges. The New York trial began on April 15, 2024. The District of Columbia trial was put on hold in February 2024 while waiting for the Supreme Court to determine whether Trump is immune from prosecution. The Georgia trial has not yet been scheduled, and the Florida trial is in flux awaiting a ruling from the judge.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (election obstruction case)</span> Prosecution for obstruction of election proceedings

United States of America v. Donald J. Trump is a pending federal criminal case against Donald Trump, the president of the United States from 2017 to 2021, regarding his alleged participation in attempts to overturn the 2020 U.S. presidential election, including his involvement in the January 6 Capitol attack.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2024 presidential eligibility of Donald Trump</span> 2023–24 U.S. legal and political dispute

Donald Trump's eligibility to run in the 2024 U.S. presidential election was the subject of dispute due to his involvement in the January 6 United States Capitol attack, through the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution's "insurrection clause", which disqualifies insurrectionists against the United States from holding office if they have previously taken an oath to support the constitution. Courts or officials in three states—Colorado, Maine, and Illinois—ruled that Trump was barred from presidential ballots. However, the Supreme Court in Trump v. Anderson (2024) reversed the ruling in Colorado on the basis that states could not enforce the insurrection clause against federal elected officials.

<i>Trump v. United States</i> (2024) United States Supreme Court case

Trump v. United States is a pending U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court will determine whether, and to what extent, presidential immunity from criminal prosecution exists.

References

  1. 1 2 "Petition for a Writ of Certiorari" (PDF). Joseph W. Fischer v. United States of America. Supreme Court of the United States. September 11, 2023. Retrieved January 30, 2024.
  2. Hurley, Lawrence; Reilly, Ryan J. (December 13, 2023). "Supreme Court agrees to hear Jan. 6 case that could affect Trump prosecution". NBC News . Retrieved January 30, 2024.
  3. 1 2 3 4 Wehle, Kimberly (January 17, 2024). "The 'Sleeping Giant' Case that Could Upend Jack Smith's Prosecution of Trump". Politico . Retrieved January 30, 2024.
  4. 1 2 3 Hsu, Spencer S.; Jackman, Tom; Weiner, Rachel (March 8, 2022). "U.S. judge dismisses lead federal charge against Jan. 6 Capitol riot defendant". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 30, 2024.
  5. Quinn, Melissa (April 15, 2023). "Supreme Court to examine federal obstruction law used to prosecute Trump and Jan. 6 rioters". CBS News .
  6. 1 2 3 Howe, Amy (December 13, 2023). "Court to weigh in on scope of law used in Jan. 6 prosecutions". SCOTUSblog . Retrieved January 30, 2024.
  7. Knappenberger, Ryan (October 20, 2023). "DC Circuit backs feds' use of 'corruptly' in key Jan. 6 charge for Trump election subversion case". Courthouse News. Retrieved January 30, 2024.
  8. Cheney, Kyle; Gerstein, Josh (April 7, 2023). "Appeals court ruling puts hundreds of Jan. 6 felony cases in limbo". Politico . Retrieved January 30, 2024.
  9. Cheney, Kyle; Gerstein, Josh (January 18, 2024). "DOJ has a near-perfect record in Jan. 6 cases. But it's starting to stumble". Politico . Retrieved January 30, 2024.
  10. "Supreme Court appears divided over obstruction law used to prosecute Trump, Jan. 6 rioters". CBS News. April 16, 2024.