Paragraph 11 of this April 14 article has been revised to include the first name and title of Special Counsel Jack Smith.
Through John Kruzel
According to Reuters, Washington The U.S. Supreme Court will devote the next two weeks to cases involving the actions of Donald Trump and his supporters in the aftermath of his 2020 election loss. These cases involve Trump’s attempt to evade prosecution for seeking to reverse his defeat, as well as an attempt by a man indicted in the Capitol attack to evade a charge that Trump himself is also confronted with.
As Trump campaigns to reclaim the White House in the upcoming November 5 U.S. election as the Republican candidate challenging Democratic President Joe Biden, the significance of the two cases increases even further.
Joseph Fischer, who was indicted on seven counts subsequent to the Capitol disturbance of January 6, 2021, including corruptly obstructing an official proceeding—congressive certification of Biden’s victory over Trump—presented arguments in his appeal to the justices on Tuesday. Then, on April 25, they are presented with arguments regarding Trump’s claim of presidential immunity from prosecution.
The court has not yet explicitly addressed issues pertaining to January 6, according to Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley. “But Fischer and Trump so clearly raise issues arising from Jan. 6.”
Numerous efforts were made by Trump to recoup his 2020 defeat. Congress gathered to certify Biden’s victory as he contributed to the attack on the Capitol through his erroneous assertions of pervasive voter fraud. Additionally, Trump and his allies formulated a strategy to obstruct certification by employing illegitimate electors from crucial states.
Federal prosecutors indictled approximately 350 of the 1,400 individuals implicated in the attack on the Capitol, including Trump and Fischer, on obstruction charges. Experts believe that a Supreme Court decision dismissing the charge against Fischer could make it more difficult, but not impossible, to prove the charge against Trump. The charge entails a maximum prison term of twenty years; however, defendants convicted of obstruction on January 6 received significantly lighter sentences.
This is one of four criminal cases involving Trump, whose first trial on charges he paid hush money to a porn star begins on Monday in New York. Trump has avowed innocence in each case, attributing the charges to political motivations.
On March 4, the Supreme Court overturned a decision made by the highest court in Colorado, which had excluded Trump from the state’s ballot on the basis of a constitutional provision pertaining to insurrection. However, the justices failed to comment on the lower court’s determination that Trump had “incited insurrection and fostered an environment of political violence” prior to the January 6 attack.Prior to Trump, all former presidents had been cleared of criminal charges.
Trump has maintained that he enjoys “absolute immunity” due to his presidential status at the time of the events that led to the indictment of election subversion by Special Counsel Jack Smith. Smith has implored the Supreme Court to dismiss that assertion on the grounds that “no individual is exempt from legal obligations.”
Smith filed four federal criminal charges against Trump in August 2023, in the election subversion case: conspiring to defraud the United States, conspiring to corruptly obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiring to violate the right to vote of Americans.
Fischer is currently detained on six criminal charges, which include civil disorder and assaulting or impeding officers. Concurrently, he is contesting his obstruction charge before the Supreme Court.
Prosecutors assert that Fischer charged police officers stationed at the entrance of the Capitol during the assault. Fischer, who was a member of the North Cornwall Township police in Pennsylvania at the time, entered the building and pressed against a riot barrier while officers attempted to expel demonstrators. Police forced him to exit the premises after he had remained inside for four minutes.
Fischer’s obstruction charge was dismissed by U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, an appointee of Trump, on the grounds that it is exclusively applicable to defendants who have tampered with evidence. A reversed decision was issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which determined that the legislation in question encompasses “all forms of corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding.”
In the event that the Supreme Court rules in Fischer’s favor, hundreds of other defendants confronted with the identical charge may be compelled to petition for new trials, withdraw their guilty pleas, or seek a resentencing.
Former federal prosecutor and current law professor at George Washington University Randall Eliason stated, “It may not make a significant practical difference in the majority of cases because a judge might not alter the sentence even if the obstruction charge is dropped.” This is because defendants convicted of multiple charges could have the judge decide not to modify the sentence.
Approximately two-thirds of the defendants charged with obstruction on January 6 were also charged with additional felonies.
Smith may continue to pursue obstruction charges against Trump despite the higher threshold that the Supreme Court might set, according to Eliason, even if Fischer prevails.
“The charges against Trump can probably survive because Smith will be able to argue that his case did involve evidence-based obstruction, based on the slates of phony electors,” according to Eliason.
Legal experts have estimated that in order for Trump’s trial on election-related charges to conclude prior to November 5, the Supreme Court would need to render a decision by approximately June 1. In the event that Trump is re-elected president, he might attempt to compel the prosecution to cease its activities or himself be pardoned of any federal offenses. Trump has pledged to pardon defendants on January 6.
