How the Supreme Court could have huge ramifications for ANOTHER Trump prosecution after raising serious questions about the January 6 cases

The Supreme Court’s conservative justices appear skeptical about an obstruction charge against a former police officer who entered the Capitol on Jan. 6 in a case that could have major ramifications for dozens of people charged in connection with the attack on the Capitol, including Donald Trump.

The nation’s highest court heard oral arguments Tuesday in the case of Fischer v. United States.

The case involves a former Pennsylvania police officer, Joseph Fischer, who was charged with assaulting a police officer, disorderly conduct in the Capitol and obstructing a congressional proceeding on January 6, 2021.

Fischer asked the court to dismiss the felony obstruction charge, arguing that the law he is accused of only applied to tampering with evidence and not to events like Jan. 6.

Fischer is accused of violating a provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act passed in 2002 after the Enron scandal. Violators can receive a prison sentence of up to twenty years.

It has been used to obtain guilty pleas from more than 150 people who participated on January 6.

Former President Donald Trump also faces the same obstruction charge in special counsel Jack Smith’s criminal case against him for election interference.

But conservative justices on the court expressed concern about the way the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was used in Fischer’s prosecution.

The Supreme Court currently has a 6-3 conservative majority.

Conservative judges pressure Attorney General Elizabeth Prelogar over the use of the law.

Judge Clarence Thomas asked whether the provision had ever been used in other protests in the past.

Prelogar said it has been used in several prosecutions that do not focus on tampering with evidence.

“Now I can’t give you an example of its enforcement in a situation where people have forcibly stormed a building to prevent an official proceeding,” she admitted. “But that’s only because I’m not aware of this circumstance ever occurring before January 6.”

Chief Justice John Roberts suggested the law might have only limited application to defendants who alter or destroy evidence.

Justice Neil Gorsuch also indicated that the government’s interpretation of the law in the case could infringe on non-violent protests.

‘What does that mean for the breadth of this statute? Would a sit-in that disrupts a proceeding or access to a federal courthouse qualify?” Gorsuch asked. “Would a heckler qualify in today’s (Supreme Court) audience, or at the State of the Union address? Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify you for 20 years in prison?”

Prelogar responded that a minor disruption or delay is not considered a form of criminal action.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh also questioned whether the other six charges against Fischer are not “good enough” for the Justice Department.

“Because these counts do not fully reflect the culpability of petitioner’s conduct on January 6. These counts do not require that petitioner acted corruptly to obstruct an official proceeding,” Prelogar responded.

Fischer’s attorney, Jeffery Green, argued that there were crimes and misdemeanors involving the alleged conduct related to January 6, but the Sarbanes-Oxley Act’s evidence tampering statute “is not one of them .’

Green was pressed by Judge Amy Coney Barrett on why it wouldn’t be considered obstruction of evidence if someone tried to obstruct the certificates’ arrival on the vice president’s desk to be counted.

“Trying to stop votes being counted or anything like that is a very different act than actually altering a document or altering a document or creating a fake new document,” Green argued.

The Supreme Court is not expected to rule on the case until June or early July before the end of the hearing, but the court’s decision would have consequences for Trump.

Depending on how the Supreme Court rules, at least one of the charges against Trump could be dismissed.

In addition, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on April 25 on whether a former president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct while in office.

Trump is facing charges in Washington DC in connection with January 6, but Smith has also sued him separately in Florida on charges related to withholding classified documents after his term.

While the ex-president is fighting the charges against him, no trial dates have yet been set for special counsel Jack Smith’s cases against him.

Conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas returned to the court Tuesday for oral arguments in the Jan. 6 case after mysteriously absent from court Monday.

Thomas returned to court in time to hear arguments and ask the first questions in the Fischer case.

Some critics suggested Thomas should have recused himself from the Jan. 6 cases because of his wife Ginni Thomas’ behind-the-scenes role in the “Stop the Steal” effort.

Ginni Thomas was at the rally on January 6, but did not enter the Capitol.