Coming Supreme Court Ruling Could Upend Jack Smith, Legal Analysts Say

(Left) Special Counsel Jack Smith delivers remarks in Washington on Aug. 1, 2023. (Right) Former President Donald Trump attends his trial in New York State Supreme Court in New York City on Dec. 7, 2023. (Drew Angerer, David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

Some legal experts say that a pending case in the U.S. Supreme Court could upend special counsel Jack Smith’s case against former President Donald Trump, coming as the high court set a date for oral arguments in the case.

Last week, the Supreme Court set an April 16 date for arguments in a case involving a Jan. 6, 2021, defendant Joseph Fischer. Namely, the court will hear a challenge to the Department of Justice’s reading of “obstruction of an official proceeding” charge that both Mr. Fischer and President Trump are facing, although the former president is facing two separate charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy against rights.

Legal analyst Jeffrey Rosen, a law professor with George Washington University, said Saturday that if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the defendant, it will represent a major win for President Trump and will make things harder for the special counsel.

“There’s a centrally important case in the Supreme Court where the Court’s going to decide whether the core of Jack Smith’s charges involving obstruction of justice are consistent with Constitution and the law or not,” he told CNN. “If they throw those out, that’s going to be a stake in the heart of the Jack Smith case. It won’t prevent it, but it'll make it much harder to pursue.”

Elaborating, he said the timing of Mr. Smith’s case could also be upended.

“The Jack Smith timing depends on, first, what the Supreme Court does—is it going to rehear immunity or just uphold the D.C. circuit?” Mr. Rosen said. “But then next month there’s a centrally important case in the Supreme court where the court’s going to decide whether the core of Jack Smith’s charges involving obstruction of justice are consistent with the Constitution and the law or not.”

Related Stories

Trump Rails Against $355 Million New York Ruling at Michigan Rally

2/18/2024

Supreme Court Could Set Landmark Precedent in Trump Jan. 6 Case

2/18/2024

He added that Should the Supreme Court “side with Fischer, it would also call into question the use of the law against other Jan. 6 defendants---including Trump.”

This weekend, Fritz Ulrich, a lawyer who is representing Mr. Fischer, told Newsweek that he will “argue for a narrow construction of Section 1512(c)(2) consistent with its language and Congress’ expressed purpose in enacting it,” referring to the section of the U.S. Code that refers to tampering of an informant, victim, or witness.

“As far as the effect on the other January 6 cases that have a Section 1512(c)(2) count, nothing will happen at the argument that would affect them,” Mr. Ulrich added. “But we may be able to discern how some of the justices view the statutory language at issue.”

Mr. Fischer was indicted under the statute two months after the Jan. 6 breach of the U.S. Capitol for obstructing an official proceeding; civil disorder; assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers; entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds; disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds; disorderly conduct; and parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building. Other analysts have said that if the federal statute is struck down, it would also impact other Jan. 6 defendants.

Earlier this month, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) joined 23 lawmakers to oppose the Biden administration’s legal strategy of using the statute to target Jan. 6 defendants and Mr. Fischer, asking the Supreme Court to strike it down.

“The Biden administration’s pursuit of its political opponents must be stopped,” the Arkansas Republican said in a statement. “Their strained interpretation of the law would criminalize vast swaths of everyday political conduct and violate the First Amendment—Congress never granted, and no administration should have the power to lock up political opponents for 20 years for merely trying to ‘influence’ Congress.”

The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on Feb. 8, 2024. (Julia Nikhinson/Getty Images)

As for President Trump, he has multiple cases in front of the Supreme Court. Recently, the high court agreed to take up his appeal of a lower court ruling that rejected his arguments claiming that he is immune from prosecution, prompting Mr. Smith to urge the court to quickly resolve the matter.

Arguments in another case involving the former president were heard this month by the nine justices regarding a 14th Amendment-related case that saw President Trump struck from the ballots in Maine and Colorado. The justices appeared mostly skeptical when questioning a lawyer representing plaintiffs in Colorado who had argued that under the amendment, President Trump should be barred from ballot access because, according to the plaintiffs and their lawyer, he engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the U.S. government.

Last week, President Trump opted against appealing to the Supreme Court over lawsuits that are seeking to hold him accountable regarding activity on Jan. 6. There was a Thursday dealing to appeal the case, which came and went without any filings to the court.

“President Trump will continue to fight for presidential immunity all across the spectrum,” said Steven Cheung, a Trump spokesman, to several news outlets last week.