Updated Jun 28, 2024 - Politics & Policy
Supreme Court curbs charges against Jan. 6 rioters
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
Photo: Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images
The Supreme Court on Friday made it more difficult to prosecute some Jan. 6 rioters, and may have weakened the Justice Department's case against former President Trump in the process.
The big picture: The court narrowed one specific charge that the Justice Department has relied on in more than 300 Jan. 6 cases, including Trump's.
- That charge — obstructing an official proceeding — has previously been used almost exclusively for white-collar crimes like evidence tampering. But the Justice Department had argued that the Jan. 6 riot was an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding: the certification of the 2020 election.
- To prove an obstruction charge, the court said Friday, prosecutors would need to show that a defendant interfered with documents, records or other material parts of an official proceeding.
- It sent the case back to a lower court to determine how Jan. 6 cases stack up against that test.
Between the lines: The ruling's overall impact on Jan. 6 prosecutions is not yet clear.
- There are more than the 1,300 Jan. 6 defendants. DOJ has charged roughly 330 of them with obstructing an official proceeding, according to AP. About 170 people have been convicted on that charge.
- But most of them have also been convicted on other charges, which will still stand even as their obstruction convictions now become invalid.
What we're watching: The ruling could also weaken the Justice Department's case against Trump.
- Trump is facing the same charge the court narrowed, as well as a charge of conspiring to obstruct an official proceeding.
- Special counsel Jack Smith, however, has argued that the obstruction charge could still survive in Trump's case.
- The specific accusations against Trump — that he and his allies attempted to submit fraudulent election certifications — fit within even a narrower reading of the obstruction charge, Smith says.
