Staff Reports
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, put the Biden administration’s Justice Department lawyer on the hot seat Tuesday over the broad application of a federal criminal law targeting protesters at the Capitol riot on January 6. The key question is whether the law, known as 1512(c)(2), which makes it illegal to “corruptly” obstruct an official proceeding, applies to nonviolent protesters.
Gorsuch didn’t hold back, questioning whether this law could also be applied to Democrat Rep. Jamaal Bowman, who was charged for setting off a fire alarm in the Capitol before a government funding vote. He grilled Justice Department Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar with scenarios, such as a sit-in disrupting a trial, a heckler at an event, or pulling a fire alarm before a vote, asking if these actions could result in 20 years in federal prison.
‼️‼️‼️
Justices Gorsuch and Alito just annihilated the entire foundation of Biden’s DOJ case against J6 protesters.
They dunk on the US solicitor general with examples of unhinged leftist psychos disrupting official proceedings, and ask why those protesters were never charged.… pic.twitter.com/ovEMZqBbmZ
— Meara (@MillennialOther) April 16, 2024
Prelogar struggled to provide clear answers, especially when faced with the idea of a “mostly peaceful protest” obstructing an official proceeding. The phrase “mostly peaceful protest” gained notoriety during the 2020 leftist protests but has now come back to haunt the Biden administration in the Supreme Court.
The case being argued, Fischer v. United States, involves former Pennsylvania police officer Joseph Fischer, accused of pushing against Capitol Police officers and urging others to “hold the line.” The core issue is whether the law was meant for evidence tampering and whether applying it to Capitol protesters is an overreach.
Conservative allies of Trump, like Mike Davis, emphasized that the Biden Justice Department used this vague law against Trump and his supporters, politicizing and weaponizing it. Davis pointed out that Prelogar danced around the question of using the same statute against BLM and Antifa.
The Supreme Court appeared divided along ideological lines, with six Republican-appointed justices showing skepticism towards the DOJ’s interpretation of the law, while at least three justices seemed open to finding a middle ground. A decision is expected by the end of June, and it seems like the Supreme Court’s conservative majority isn’t buying what the Biden administration is selling.
