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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
