Dem
51
GOP
49
Hundreds of people who took part in the Jan. 6 riot, including Donald Trump, were charged with obstruction of an official proceeding. This law is part of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Three of those defendants have argued, in court, that their conduct is not covered by the Act. The Supreme Court took the case yesterday and will hear oral arguments in March or April and make a decision in June. The penalty for violating this law is up to 20 years in the pen.
A lower-court judge, Carl Nichols, dismissed the charge against a former Pennsylvania police officer and two others, ruling that their behavior on Jan. 6 was not covered by the law. The judge said that to be guilty of violating the law, the accused must have taken some action with respect to a document, record, or other object. In other words, for example, merely breaking into the Capitol would not be obstruction, whereas grabbing an envelope containing electoral votes would be. The D.C. Court of Appeals said "Nope, their behavior was covered." However, the three judges did not agree on their reasoning, which the Supreme Court will have to clarify.
The Biden administration urged the Court not to take the case and leave it to the lower courts. Now that it is going to the Supremes, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar will argue: "It is therefore natural to say that a defendant obstructs an official proceeding by physically blocking it from occurring." She doesn't see need for any specific document or record to be involved. She also argued that since none of the three have actually been convicted of obstruction, it is too early for the Supreme Court to get involved. (V)