During a recent Supreme Court session, the three liberal justices appeared to be leaning towards supporting the Justice Department's argument that the federal obstruction law in question is broad enough to encompass the actions of the rioters on January 6, 2021.
Justice Elena Kagan pointed out that while Congress could have restricted the law to cover only evidence tampering, the current wording of the law does not limit it in that way. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson also seemed to be in agreement, emphasizing a textualist approach to interpreting the law based on its plain language.
The justices focused on the language of the statute itself, with Jackson highlighting that the term 'official proceeding' is used in the law, which includes congressional proceedings like the one disrupted on January 6.
Lawyers representing one of the January 6 defendants argued that the law should only apply to evidence tampering and not to disrupting a proceeding. The defendant in question breached the US Capitol on January 6, with prosecutors alleging that his actions obstructed Congress' certification of the 2020 election, causing a delay in the process.
The Supreme Court's deliberations on this case will have significant implications for how the federal obstruction law is interpreted and applied in cases involving similar conduct. The justices' focus on the plain text of the law suggests a potential alignment with the Justice Department's position in this matter.
