During a recent Supreme Court hearing, several conservative justices expressed skepticism towards Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar's arguments regarding the obstruction statute and its application to the US Capitol rioters. The justices raised concerns about the broad interpretation of the statute and its potential implications on political demonstrations.
Justice Neil Gorsuch initiated the line of questioning by highlighting examples of political demonstrations that could fall under the DOJ's interpretation, potentially resulting in a 20-year prison sentence for protesters. Justice Samuel Alito further probed Prelogar on a hypothetical scenario involving protesters disrupting proceedings at the Supreme Court.
Justice Clarence Thomas criticized Prelogar for not aligning with a textualist approach to the case, indicating his skepticism towards her arguments. Chief Justice John Roberts focused on the connection between the provision in question and crimes related to evidence tampering.
The conservative justices' inquiries suggest a reluctance to accept the broad application of the obstruction statute proposed by Prelogar. Their scrutiny of potential implications on political demonstrations and legal proceedings underscores the complexity of interpreting and applying the law in cases involving public protests and disruptions.
