Supreme Court Schedules Hearings in Jan. 6 Case, Abortion, Immigration Appeals

Former police officer Joseph W. Fischer was charged under an evidence-tampering provision in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act aimed at curbing wrongdoing on Wall Street.

Former Pennsylvania police officer Joseph W. Fischer (right) is accused of scuffling with police inside the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. U.S. Department of Justice/Screenshot via The Epoch Times

The Supreme Court will hear the closely watched case of a Jan. 6 defendant on April 16, the court announced on Feb. 16.

The case could lead to the dropping of charges against many defendants who were charged in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, protest of the impending congressional certification of the 2020 presidential election results at the U.S. Capitol in Washington.

Former police officer Joseph W. Fischer of Jonestown, Pennsylvania, is the main defendant in the case known as Fischer v. United States. The oral arguments were scheduled in a notice posted by the court on its website.

Legal experts previously told The Epoch Times that they believe the nation’s highest court may strike down the use of a key federal law in the Biden administration’s ongoing prosecutions of Jan. 6 defendants and, in the process, shut down the government’s case against hundreds of defendants.

If the court finds that the Enron-era obstruction law—18 U.S. Code Section 1512(c)—is being used improperly against the defendants, the charges are likely to be thrown out.

At issue is the evidence-tampering provision that appears in the Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act of 2002, which was part of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act aimed at curbing wrongdoing on Wall Street.

The legislation came in the wake of fraud-related scandals at Enron Corp. and other major corporations. Enron employed dubious accounting practices to conceal falling profits and exaggerate earnings, and its employees reportedly began destroying paperwork when they learned that indictments were in the works.

President Donald Trump was indicted under the same federal statute and also stands to benefit if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the defendant, according to sources.

Mr. Fischer was indicted under the accounting reform statute two months after the Jan. 6 breach 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.

He pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Lawyers have criticized the Justice Department for filing obstruction charges against Mr. Fischer and his fellow defendants under Sarbanes–Oxley to prosecute people who were exercising their First Amendment right to protest the congressional certification of election results.

Some defendants who arrived at the Capitol after Congress was evacuated on Jan. 6 were also charged with obstructing an official proceeding—the joint session of Congress that convened to count Electoral College votes and hear objections from lawmakers.

Several defendants have argued unsuccessfully at trial that they couldn’t have obstructed Congress because they weren’t present in the Capitol until after lawmakers had left the complex.

Other Cases Scheduled

In the same Feb. 16 announcement, the Supreme Court also scheduled oral arguments in several other cases.

Moyle v. United States

On April 24, the Supreme Court is scheduled to take up the abortion case of Moyle v. United States, which has been consolidated with Idaho v. United States.

The state of Idaho asked the Supreme Court to put on hold a lower court order that preliminarily enjoined Idaho’s abortion law, which forbids abortions except when “necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman” or during the first trimester when the pregnancy was caused through rape or incest.

On Jan. 5, the Supreme Court granted Idaho’s request to stay the lower court order, pending the outcome of the case at the high court.

The lower court had found that the state statute was preempted by the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). Federal preemption means that a state law that conflicts with federal law is invalid.

The EMTALA was passed by Congress in 1986 “to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay,” according to a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) summary.

The Social Security Act requires hospitals that participate in Medicare and provide emergency services “to provide a medical screening examination (MSE) when a request is made for examination or treatment for an emergency medical condition (EMC), including active labor, regardless of an individual’s ability to pay.”

Such hospitals are also “required to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with EMCs,” according to the CMS. Stabilizing treatment includes abortions, the Biden administration argues.

Soon after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022, the CMS issued legal guidance asserting that the EMTALA could mandate abortion and supersede state abortion laws, which critics say effectively creates a new federal right to abortion in hospital emergency rooms.

Snyder v. United States

On April 15, the court will hear Snyder v. United States, an appeal by James Snyder, former mayor of an Indiana town who was convicted of bribery.

The case comes as the court has been raising the bar in public corruption prosecutions in recent years. The court has been willing to overturn corruption convictions that involve public officials doing things that some think of as normal political activities.

The federal government argues that Mr. Snyder steered two contracts for town garbage trucks to a trucking company in exchange for the payment. Mr. Snyder said the payment was “a valid transaction with his consulting business, as the truck company’s owner testified at trial.”

Thornell v. Jones

On April 17, the Supreme Court will take up Thornell v. Jones. Arizona is appealing a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that a death row inmate is entitled to a new sentencing hearing.

Danny Lee Jones claims that he received ineffective assistance from counsel during the sentencing process. Mr. Jones was convicted of two counts of murder and one count of attempted murder.

He argues that his lawyer failed to secure a mental health expert and conduct appropriate medical tests in a timely manner during the sentencing process.

City of Grants Pass v. Johnson

On April 22, the court will hear City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, which is about whether cities may cite homeless persons for camping on public property.

A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld a sweeping lower court injunction preventing cities from ticketing the homeless for camping on the streets on the ground that taking such enforcement action violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

On the same day, the court will hear Smith v. Spizzirri, an arbitration dispute brought by drivers against a delivery company.

The drivers allege that the company misclassified them as independent contractors, failed to pay minimum and overtime wages, and failed to give them paid sick leave. They sued, arguing that their dispute should be heard in the courts, but federal courts have ruled that they must proceed to arbitration.

Department of State v. Munoz

On April 23, the high court will take up Department of State v. Munoz, an immigration case.

In the case, an El Salvadoran citizen’s U.S. immigration visa was denied in part because a visa officer thought his tattoos indicated gang membership.

The government argues that under federal law the visa denial cannot be challenged in court. At issue is the doctrine of “consular nonreviewability,” which is the legal principle that a consular official’s decision to refuse a visa to a foreigner is not ordinarily subject to judicial review.

Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney

On the same day, the Supreme Court will hear Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney.

The coffee company was ordered by a federal district court to rehire labor activists in Memphis, Tennessee, who were dismissed after they participated in a union organizing drive aimed at baristas. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld the lower court order.

The National Labor Relations Board, an independent federal agency that aims to protect the rights of private-sector employees to join together to improve their wages and workplace conditions, stated that Starbucks blocked lawful organizing activities by the baristas.