Supreme Court Limits DOJ's Power in January 6 Prosecutions
Submitted by MAGA Student
Posted 2 days ago
Attorney General Merrick Garland has expressed his disappointment over the Supreme Court's decision in Fischer v. United States, which ruled in favor of a January 6 defendant who protested at the Capitol. In a statement, Garland vowed to hold protesters involved in the Capitol breach "accountable" with "all available tools."
The court case revolved around Joseph Fischer, a former police officer who entered the Capitol building on January 6 and was charged with obstructing an official proceeding. The court found that the law used to charge Fischer was incorrectly applied and sent the case back to lower courts for future proceedings to determine if the Department of Justice could still prosecute Fischer.
Approximately 350 other protesters have pending charges under the same law, and this case can set a precedent for other cases of people who entered the Capitol. Due to the ruling, prosecutors must now, in order to prove a violation, show that the defendant "impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or ... other things used in the proceeding," as explained by Chief Justice John Roberts in the decision.
Attorney General Garland's statement read, "January 6 was an unprecedented attack on the cornerstone of our system of government — the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next. I am disappointed by today’s decision, which limits an important federal statute that the Department has sought to use to ensure that those most responsible for that attack face appropriate consequences."
Garland added, "The vast majority of the more than 1,400 defendants charged for their illegal actions on January 6 will not be affected by this decision. There are no cases in which the Department charged a January 6 defendant only with the offense at issue in Fischer. For the cases affected by today’s decision, the Department will take appropriate steps to comply with the Court’s ruling."
He concluded, "We will continue to use all available tools to hold accountable those criminally responsible for the January 6 attack on our democracy."
This decision by the Supreme Court has sparked debate over the appropriate use of federal statutes to prosecute those involved in the Capitol breach. Some argue that the ruling limits the ability of the Department of Justice to hold those responsible for the attack accountable, while others see it as a necessary check on the government's power.
Regardless of one's stance on the issue, it is clear that the January 6 attack on the Capitol was a significant event in American history, and the legal proceedings surrounding it will continue to be closely watched.
Sources:
thepostmillennial.com
outkick.com
nbcnewyork.com
The court case revolved around Joseph Fischer, a former police officer who entered the Capitol building on January 6 and was charged with obstructing an official proceeding. The court found that the law used to charge Fischer was incorrectly applied and sent the case back to lower courts for future proceedings to determine if the Department of Justice could still prosecute Fischer.
Approximately 350 other protesters have pending charges under the same law, and this case can set a precedent for other cases of people who entered the Capitol. Due to the ruling, prosecutors must now, in order to prove a violation, show that the defendant "impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or ... other things used in the proceeding," as explained by Chief Justice John Roberts in the decision.
Attorney General Garland's statement read, "January 6 was an unprecedented attack on the cornerstone of our system of government — the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next. I am disappointed by today’s decision, which limits an important federal statute that the Department has sought to use to ensure that those most responsible for that attack face appropriate consequences."
Garland added, "The vast majority of the more than 1,400 defendants charged for their illegal actions on January 6 will not be affected by this decision. There are no cases in which the Department charged a January 6 defendant only with the offense at issue in Fischer. For the cases affected by today’s decision, the Department will take appropriate steps to comply with the Court’s ruling."
He concluded, "We will continue to use all available tools to hold accountable those criminally responsible for the January 6 attack on our democracy."
This decision by the Supreme Court has sparked debate over the appropriate use of federal statutes to prosecute those involved in the Capitol breach. Some argue that the ruling limits the ability of the Department of Justice to hold those responsible for the attack accountable, while others see it as a necessary check on the government's power.
Regardless of one's stance on the issue, it is clear that the January 6 attack on the Capitol was a significant event in American history, and the legal proceedings surrounding it will continue to be closely watched.
Sources:
thepostmillennial.com
outkick.com
nbcnewyork.com
