Justices to Hear Obstruction Case That Could Bar Charges Against Trump

The Latest Garland’s Careful Approach Trump’s Immunity Claim Trump’s 2020 Pressure Campaign Trump Case Tracker U.S. World Business Arts Lifestyle Opinion Audio Games Cooking Wirecutter The Athletic You have a preview view of this article while we are checking your access. When we have confirmed access, the full article content will load. The Latest Garland’s […]

Justices to Hear Obstruction Case That Could Bar Charges Against Trump

Justices to Hear Obstruction Case That Could Bar Charges Against Trump thumbnail

You have a preview view of this article while we are checking your access. When we have confirmed access, the full article content will load.

The question for the Supreme Court is whether a 2002 law prompted by white-collar fraud applies to the obstruction of the congressional proceeding on Jan. 6, 2021.

A crowd of rioters enter the Capitol after forcing open a door.
Rioters storming the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York Times

Adam Liptak

The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Tuesday in a case that could eliminate some of the federal charges against former President Donald J. Trump in the case accusing him of plotting to subvert the 2020 election and could disrupt the prosecutions of hundreds of rioters involved in the Capitol attack.

The question the justices will consider is whether a provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, enacted in the wake of the collapse of the energy giant Enron, covers the conduct of a former police officer, Joseph W. Fischer, who participated in the Capitol assault, on Jan. 6, 2021.

The law figures in two of the federal charges against Mr. Trump in his election subversion case, and more than 350 people who stormed the Capitol have been prosecuted under it. If the Supreme Court sides with Mr. Fischer and says the statute does not cover what he is accused of having done, Mr. Trump is almost certain to contend that it does not apply to his conduct, either.

The law, signed in 2002, was prompted by accounting fraud and the destruction of documents, but the provision is written in broad terms. Still, in an earlier case involving a different provision of the law, the Supreme Court said it should be tethered to its original purpose.

At least part of what the law meant to accomplish was to address a gap in the federal criminal code: It was a crime to persuade others to destroy records relevant to an investigation or official proceeding but not to do so oneself. The law sought to close that gap.

It did that in a two-part provision. The first part makes it a crime to corruptly alter, destroy or conceal evidence to frustrate official proceedings. The second part, at issue in Mr. Fischer’s case, makes it a crime “otherwise” to corruptly obstruct, influence or impede any official proceeding.


Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.


Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in.

Want all of The Times? Subscribe.