During a recent Supreme Court hearing, Justice Clarence Thomas raised questions about the government's use of a specific law in relation to the Capitol rioters. Thomas inquired whether the Justice Department had previously applied the law in similar situations, hinting at a potential lack of consistency in its enforcement.
The 2002 law in question has sparked debate, with some conservatives suggesting that the Justice Department is being more severe towards Capitol rioters compared to individuals involved in protests in 2020. This discrepancy has raised concerns about the uniform application of the law.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar responded to Thomas's query by stating that the Justice Department has historically utilized the law beyond cases of evidence tampering. While Prelogar affirmed the consistent application of the law, she also acknowledged similarities to previous cases.
The exchange between Thomas and Prelogar sheds light on the ongoing scrutiny surrounding the Justice Department's handling of cases related to the Capitol riot. The discussion highlights the complexities of interpreting and enforcing laws in the context of civil unrest and criminal behavior.
