No Result
View All Result
  • About us
  • Contact us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
Smart Investment Today
  • News
  • Economy
  • Editor’s Pick
  • Investing
  • Stock
  • News
  • Economy
  • Editor’s Pick
  • Investing
  • Stock
No Result
View All Result
Smart Investment Today
No Result
View All Result
Home Editor's Pick

Fischer v. US: Court Clarifies Ban on Obstructing a Federal Proceeding

by
June 28, 2024
in Editor's Pick
0
Fischer v. US: Court Clarifies Ban on Obstructing a Federal Proceeding
0
SHARES
4
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Walter Olson

The Supreme Court today narrowed the effective scope of a provision of the Sarbanes‐​Oxley financial reform law under which prosecutors have charged January 6 rioters with obstructing a federal proceeding. It ruled that to be charged, defendants had to have obstructed the integrity or availability of documents, objects, or other things used in the proceeding, not simply impeded it in other ways.

Today’s reading will result in the narrowing of some charges against the January 6 defendants. In no way, however, should it be viewed as a license for lawlessness. In nearly all cases, especially the serious ones, the rioters face other charges not at issue here. And while the ruling may at least slightly narrow the permitted scope of the federal prosecution of former President Donald Trump over January 6, much of Trump’s alleged obstructive behavior may still be chargeable as relating to the integrity and availability of official documents and the like.

The merits were in relatively close balance. The majority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, relied on venerable canons of construction under which context counts, taking note that the catchall provision occurred amid a list of financial falsification and obstruction of justice offenses. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in concurrence, reviewed the legislative history and concluded that Congress probably did not intend to criminalize a far broader swath of obstruction.

In dissent, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, championed the stand‐​alone plain meaning of the law’s relevant phrasing. It was a disturbingly broad and capacious plain meaning, to be sure, under which protesters who briefly “impede” some federal agency proceeding, or a sitting of the court itself, by shouting out of turn might be exposed to lengthy prison sentences.

When there is genuine uncertainty as to the meaning of a law, judges help safeguard liberty by applying a narrow reading to avoid criminalizing conduct not clearly marked out as such. That is what the court did today.

Previous Post

Access to Methadone Treatment Is Pathetically Low

Next Post

How a Limited State Becomes an Unlimited, Administrative State

Next Post

How a Limited State Becomes an Unlimited, Administrative State

    Stay updated with the latest news, exclusive offers, and special promotions. Sign up now and be the first to know! As a member, you'll receive curated content, insider tips, and invitations to exclusive events. Don't miss out on being part of something special.


    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    • Trending
    • Comments
    • Latest

    Gold Prices Rise as the Dollar Slowly Dies

    May 25, 2024

    Richard Murphy, The Bank of England, And MMT Confusion

    March 15, 2025

    We Can’t Fix International Organizations like the WTO. Abolish Them.

    March 15, 2025

    Free Markets Promote Peaceful Cooperation and Racial Harmony

    March 15, 2025

    China’s Strengths Are Over-Exaggerated

    0

    Ana-Maria Coaching Marks Milestone with New Book Release

    0

    The Consequences of California’s New Minimum Wage Law

    0

    Memorial Day

    0

    China’s Strengths Are Over-Exaggerated

    June 7, 2025

    Paul Heyne: The Ethicist Who Thought Like an Economist

    June 7, 2025

    Preparing for War

    June 7, 2025
    I Shot the Tariff (But I Swear It Was in Self-Defense)

    I Shot the Tariff (But I Swear It Was in Self-Defense)

    June 6, 2025

    Recent News

    China’s Strengths Are Over-Exaggerated

    June 7, 2025

    Paul Heyne: The Ethicist Who Thought Like an Economist

    June 7, 2025

    Preparing for War

    June 7, 2025
    I Shot the Tariff (But I Swear It Was in Self-Defense)

    I Shot the Tariff (But I Swear It Was in Self-Defense)

    June 6, 2025
    • About us
    • Contact us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Copyright © 2025 smartinvestmenttoday.com | All Rights Reserved

    No Result
    View All Result
    • News
    • Economy
    • Editor’s Pick
    • Investing
    • Stock

    Copyright © 2025 smartinvestmenttoday.com | All Rights Reserved