OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
In a decision that could help former President Donald Trump, the U.S. Supreme Court decided on Friday to support a former police officer who is attempting to have an obstruction charge against him dismissed for his participation in the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021.
Joseph Fischer, one of hundreds of defendants, including Trump, who have been charged with impeding an official proceeding over the attempt to stop Congress from certifying President Joe Biden’s election victory, won the case by a vote of 6-3 by the court.
The law, which was passed in 2002 as a part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in response to the Enron accounting disaster, the court found, was only meant to be applicable in certain situations involving the altering of physical evidence.
To continue the discussion on whether the Justice Department may still prosecute Fischer in light of the revised legal understanding, the court returned the matter to lower courts.
The relevant provision, 18 U.S. Code 1512, imposes a maximum 20-year jail penalty.
“To what extent the ruling favors Trump remains to be seen. Even if Fischer prevails in the case against Trump, prosecutors claimed that a stricter interpretation of the law would still apply to Trump’s actions. Fischer faces seven criminal charges, only one of which was the focus of the Supreme Court case. Even if the obstruction charge is ultimately dismissed, the other charges, including assaulting a police officer and entering a restricted building, will remain in place,” NBC News reported.
“The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has in the past been skeptical of prosecutors when they assert broad applications of criminal provisions. In his election interference case, Trump faces four charges, including one count of obstructing an official proceeding and another of conspiracy to do so,” the outlet added.
In a separate case, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that an Oregon city’s policy prohibiting anybody without a permanent residence from sleeping outside did not violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual” punishment.
Chief Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the 6-3 opinion. The dissent came from the three liberal judges of the court, ABC News reported.
“Homelessness is complex. Its causes are many. So maybe the public policy responses required to address it,” Gorsuch wrote. “At bottom, the question this case presents is whether the Eighth Amendment grants federal judges primary responsibility for assessing those causes and devising those responses. It does not.”
Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined Justice Sonia Sotomayor in dissent, arguing that the ordinance penalizes homeless people who have nowhere else to go because of their status.
“It is possible to acknowledge and balance the issues facing local governments, the humanity and dignity of homeless people, and our constitutional principles,” Sotomayor wrote. “Instead, the majority focuses almost exclusively on the needs of local governments and leaves the most vulnerable in our society with an impossible choice: Either stay awake or be arrested.”
“The Constitution provides a baseline of rights for all Americans, rich and poor, housed and unhoused,” Sotomayor said.
The Supreme Court has been busy this week as the term nears an end.
The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that, to comply with a federal provision requiring emergency rooms to provide “stabilizing treatments” to patients in severe condition, doctors in Idaho must, at least for the time being, be permitted to perform emergency abortions, despite the state’s nearly complete ban.
The Court invalidated stays it had issued earlier this year and concluded that writs of certiorari in two legal matters were “improvidently granted,” according to an unsigned opinion. The case may eventually come back before the Supreme Court, as it will continue to be heard on the merits in lower courts.
A draft of the ruling was inadvertently uploaded on the court’s website on Wednesday before it was removed. With the identical conclusion but omitting a few phrases from the earlier draft, Thursday’s opinion seems to be fairly close to the inadvertent draft.
Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Brett Kavanagh, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett concurred in the very rare decision made by the Court “because the shape of these cases has substantially shifted” since the Court granted certiorari, Fox News reported.
But Justice Clarence Thomas, joining Justice Samuel Alito, referred to the Court’s ruling as “baffling.”
“Recognizing the flaws in the Government’s theory and Idaho’s ‘strong’ likelihood of success, this Court stayed the preliminary injunction pending appeal on January 5. And, wisely or not, the Court also took the unusual step of granting certiorari before Idaho’s appeal was heard by the Ninth Circuit. Now the Court dismisses the writ and, what is worse, vacates the stay,” Alito wrote.
“This about-face is baffling,” he continued. “Nothing legally relevant has occurred since January 5. And the underlying issue in this case—whether EMTALA requires hospitals to perform abortions in some circumstances—is a straightforward question of statutory interpretation. It is squarely presented by the decision below, and it has been exhaustively briefed and argued.”
“Altogether, we have more than 1,300 pages of briefing to assist us, and we heard nearly two hours of argument,” Alito added.
“Everything there is to say about the statutory interpretation question has probably been said many times over. That question is as ripe for decision as it ever will be. Apparently, the Court has simply lost the will to decide the easy but emotional and highly politicized question that the case presents. That is regrettable,” Alito said.
