Elon's Vision
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • News
  • Economy
  • Editor’s Pick
  • Investing
  • Stock
No Result
View All Result
  • News
  • Economy
  • Editor’s Pick
  • Investing
  • Stock
No Result
View All Result
Elon's Vision
No Result
View All Result
Home Editor's Pick

Fischer v. US: Court Clarifies Ban on Obstructing a Federal Proceeding

by
June 28, 2024
in Editor's Pick
0
Fischer v. US: Court Clarifies Ban on Obstructing a Federal Proceeding
0
SHARES
12
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Walter Olson

The Supreme Court today narrowed the effective scope of a provision of the Sarbanes‐​Oxley financial reform law under which prosecutors have charged January 6 rioters with obstructing a federal proceeding. It ruled that to be charged, defendants had to have obstructed the integrity or availability of documents, objects, or other things used in the proceeding, not simply impeded it in other ways.

Today’s reading will result in the narrowing of some charges against the January 6 defendants. In no way, however, should it be viewed as a license for lawlessness. In nearly all cases, especially the serious ones, the rioters face other charges not at issue here. And while the ruling may at least slightly narrow the permitted scope of the federal prosecution of former President Donald Trump over January 6, much of Trump’s alleged obstructive behavior may still be chargeable as relating to the integrity and availability of official documents and the like.

The merits were in relatively close balance. The majority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, relied on venerable canons of construction under which context counts, taking note that the catchall provision occurred amid a list of financial falsification and obstruction of justice offenses. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in concurrence, reviewed the legislative history and concluded that Congress probably did not intend to criminalize a far broader swath of obstruction.

In dissent, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, championed the stand‐​alone plain meaning of the law’s relevant phrasing. It was a disturbingly broad and capacious plain meaning, to be sure, under which protesters who briefly “impede” some federal agency proceeding, or a sitting of the court itself, by shouting out of turn might be exposed to lengthy prison sentences.

When there is genuine uncertainty as to the meaning of a law, judges help safeguard liberty by applying a narrow reading to avoid criminalizing conduct not clearly marked out as such. That is what the court did today.

Previous Post

Access to Methadone Treatment Is Pathetically Low

Next Post

How a Limited State Becomes an Unlimited, Administrative State

Next Post

How a Limited State Becomes an Unlimited, Administrative State

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Get the daily email that makes reading the news actually enjoyable. Stay informed and entertained, for free.
Your information is secure and your privacy is protected. By opting in you agree to receive emails from us. Remember that you can opt-out any time, we hate spam too!
  • Trending
  • Comments
  • Latest

Jay Bhattacharya on Public Health

October 12, 2021

Microsoft Planner vs Trello: Which Project Management Tool is Better?

May 24, 2023
Nicole Kidman Joins Paycom Webinar and Podcast to Talk Leadership, Tech and Work-Life Balance 

Nicole Kidman Joins Paycom Webinar and Podcast to Talk Leadership, Tech and Work-Life Balance 

January 31, 2025

An update on the National Nature Assessment

April 23, 2025
Christmas dinner and festive treats up to 70% more expensive, Which? warns

Christmas dinner and festive treats up to 70% more expensive, Which? warns

0

0

0

0
Christmas dinner and festive treats up to 70% more expensive, Which? warns

Christmas dinner and festive treats up to 70% more expensive, Which? warns

December 18, 2025
Christmas dinner and festive treats up to 70% more expensive, Which? warns

Christmas dinner and festive treats up to 70% more expensive, Which? warns

December 18, 2025
MPs warn UK agreements with Donald Trump are ‘built on sand’

MPs warn UK agreements with Donald Trump are ‘built on sand’

December 18, 2025
Fast Facts About SNAP

Fast Facts About SNAP

December 18, 2025

Recent News

Christmas dinner and festive treats up to 70% more expensive, Which? warns

Christmas dinner and festive treats up to 70% more expensive, Which? warns

December 18, 2025
Christmas dinner and festive treats up to 70% more expensive, Which? warns

Christmas dinner and festive treats up to 70% more expensive, Which? warns

December 18, 2025
MPs warn UK agreements with Donald Trump are ‘built on sand’

MPs warn UK agreements with Donald Trump are ‘built on sand’

December 18, 2025
Fast Facts About SNAP

Fast Facts About SNAP

December 18, 2025

Disclaimer: ElonsVision.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively "The Company") do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions

Copyright © 2025 ElonsVision. All Rights Reserved.

No Result
View All Result
  • News
  • Economy
  • Editor’s Pick
  • Investing
  • Stock

Copyright © 2025 ElonsVision. All Rights Reserved.