Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.

Fischer v. United States

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Fischer v. United States
Term: 2023
Important Dates
Argued: April 16, 2024
Decided: June 28, 2024
Outcome
vacated and remanded
Vote
6-3
Majority
Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Ketanji Brown Jackson
Concurring
Ketanji Brown Jackson
Dissenting
Amy Coney Barrett • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan

Fischer v. United States is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 26, 2024, during the court's October 2023-2024 term. The case was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on April 16, 2024.

In a 6-3 opinion, the court vacated and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, holding that in order to prove a violation of §1512(c)(2), the government has to, "establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so." Justice Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the court.[1] Click here for more information about the ruling.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned the legal scope of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) when prosecuting individuals for obstruction of justice related to the January 6th, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented: "Did the D.C. Circuit err in construing 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) (“Witness, Victim, or Informant Tampering"). Which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations. to include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence?"[2]
  • The outcome: In a 6-3 opinion, the court vacated and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, holding that in order to prove a violation of §1512(c)(2), the government has to, "establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so."[1]


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Background

    Petitioner Joseph Fischer attended President Donald Trump's (R) Stop the Steal rally on January 6, 2021, in Washington, D.C. He went home after the rally but then returned to the U.S. Capitol upon learning of the crowd demonstration there.[3] According to Fischer's petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court:[4]

    “ Mr. Fischer was not part of the mob that forced the electoral certification to stop; he arrived at the Capitol grounds well after Congress recessed. See Fischer, No.1:21-CR-00234, Doc. 51 at 4.1 And as Mr. Fischer walked toward the East side of the building, no barricades or fences impeded him. See id. He ultimately entered the Capitol around 3:25 p.m. Police video captures Mr. Fischer’s conduct inside the building. It reveals, for example, that he pushed his way through the crowd—to about 20 feet inside the building. But as he neared the police line, the swell of the crowd then knocked Mr. Fischer to the ground. Returning to his feet, Mr. Fischer returned lost equipment, a pair of handcuffs, to a Capitol police officer. He talked with an officer, patting him on the shoulder. Then the weight of the crowd pushed Mr. Fischer into the police line. See id. With that, the Capitol police pepper sprayed the protesters, blinding Mr. Fischer. He exited four minutes after entering.[5] ”
    —Joseph Fischer


    The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit opinion's description of the case background details Fischer's actions as follows:[3]

    “ On January 6, 2021, he encouraged rioters to "charge" and "hold the line," had a "physical encounter" with at least one law enforcement officer, and participated in pushing the police. Fischer Crim. Compl., Appellant's Appendix ("App.") 423-27. Before January 6, he allegedly sent text messages to acquaintances, stating: "If Trump don't get in we better get to war"; "Take democratic [C]ongress to the gallows. . . . Can't vote if they can't breathe . . . lol"; and "I might need you to post my bail. . . . It might get violent. . . . They should storm the capital [sic] and drag all the democrates [sic] into the street and have a mob trial." Gov't Opp'n to Mot. to Clarify and Modify Conditions of Release, App. 433-34. Fischer's seven-count indictment charges him with assaulting both Capitol Police and MPD officers.[5] ”
    —Judge Florence Pan


    Fischer was indicted by a grand jury with seven counts: 1) civil disorder, 2) assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers; 3) entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds, 4) disorderly conduct in a restricted building, 5) disorderly conduct in a capitol building, 6) parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a capitol building; and 7) violating 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) by corrupting evidence related to congressional proceedings. Judge Carl Nichols granted Fischer's motion to dismiss the 1512(c) violation based on his opinion in United States v. Miller (2022), which rejected the government's interpretation of the statute. According to SCOTUSblog, Judge Nichols "reasoned that the law, which was enacted in the wake of the Enron collapse, was only intended to apply to evidence tampering that obstructs an official proceeding."[3][4][6][7]

    On appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the district court ruling, holding:[3]

    “ As Congress convened on January 6, 2021, to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election in favor of Joseph R. Biden, Jr., thousands of supporters of the losing candidate, Donald J. Trump, converged on the United States Capitol to disrupt the proceedings. The Trump supporters swarmed the building, overwhelming law enforcement officers who attempted to stop them. The chaos wrought by the mob forced members of Congress to stop the certification and flee for safety. Congress was not able to resume its work for six hours. The question raised in this case is whether individuals who allegedly assaulted law enforcement officers while participating in the Capitol riot can be charged with corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2). The district court held that the statute does not apply to assaultive conduct, committed in furtherance of an attempt to stop Congress from performing a constitutionally required duty. We disagree and reverse.[5] ”
    —Judge Florence Pan


    Fischer appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on September 11, 2023, asking the justices to review the D.C. Circuit's interpretation of 1512(c) violations. On December 13, 2023, SCOTUS accepted the case to its merits docket.

    18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)

    The legal statute at issue in the case is 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant. Subsection 1512(c) states:[8]

    “ (c) Whoever corruptly-

    (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
    (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.[5]

    		”

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]

    Questions presented:
    “ Did the D.C. Circuit err in construing 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) (“Witness, Victim, or Informant Tampering"). Which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations to include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence?[5] ”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[9]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[10]

    Outcome

    In a 6-3 opinion, the court vacated and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, holding that in order to prove a violation of §1512(c)(2), the government has to, "establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so." Justice Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the court.[1]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Chief Justice John Roberts wrote:[1]

    “

    It makes sense to read subsection (c)(2) as limited by (c)(1) in light of the history of the provision.

    Prior to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Section 1512 imposed criminal liability on anyone who “knowingly uses intimidation or physical force, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person” to, among other things, shred documents. 18 U. S. C. §1512(b)(2)(B) (2000 ed.). But the Enron accounting scandal revealed a loophole: Although Enron’s “outside auditor, Arthur Andersen LLP, had systematically destroyed potentially incriminating documents,” the statute curiously failed to “impos[e] liability on a person who destroys records himself.” Yates, 574 U. S., at 535–536 (plurality opinion). As a result, prosecutors had to prove that higher-ups at Enron and Arthur Andersen persuaded someone else to shred documents rather than the more obvious theory that someone who shreds documents is liable for doing so. See S. Rep. No. 107–146, p. 7 (2002).

    The parties agree that to plug this loophole, Congress enacted Section 1512(c)—the provision at issue here—as part of the broader Sarbanes-Oxley Act. It would be peculiar to conclude that in closing the Enron gap, Congress actually hid away in the second part of the third subsection of Section 1512 a catchall provision that reaches far beyond the document shredding and similar scenarios that prompted the legislation in the first place. The better conclusion is that subsection (c)(2) was designed by Congress to capture other forms of evidence and other means of impairing its integrity or availability beyond those Congress specified in (c)(1). [5]

    		”
    —Justice Chief Justice John Roberts

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a concurring opinion.

    In her concurring opinion, Justice Jackson wrote:[1]

    “

    In my view, the Court properly interprets §1512(c)(2) in the opinion it issues today. It also rightly vacates the judgment below and remands this case for further proceedings. Joseph Fischer was charged with violating §1512(c)(2) by corruptly obstructing ‘a proceeding before Congress, specifically, Congress’s certification of the Electoral College vote.’ App. 183. That official proceeding plainly used certain records, documents, or objects—including, among others, those relating to the electoral votes themselves. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 65–67. And it might well be that Fischer’s conduct, as alleged here, involved the impairment (or the attempted impairment) of the availability or integrity of things used during the January 6 proceeding ‘in ways other than those specified in (c)(1).’ Ante, at 8. If so, then Fischer’s prosecution under §1512(c)(2) can, and should, proceed. That issue remains available for the lower courts to determine on remand.[5]

    		”
    —Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan].

    In her dissent, Justice Barrett wrote:[1]

    “

    There is no getting around it: Section 1512(c)(2) is an expansive statute. Yet Congress, not this Court, weighs the ‘pros and cons of whether a statute should sweep broadly or narrowly.’ United States v. Rodgers, 466 U. S. 475, 484 (1984). Once Congress has set the outer bounds of liability, the Executive Branch has the discretion to select particular cases to prosecute within those boundaries. By atextually narrowing §1512(c)(2), the Court has failed to respect the prerogatives of the political branches. Cf. ante, at 15. I respectfully dissent.[5]

    		”
    —Justice Amy Coney Barrett

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2023-2024

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2023-2024

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 2, 2023. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[11]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Supreme Court of the United States, FISCHER v. UNITED STATES, decided June 28, 2024
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "23-5572 FISCHER V. UNITED STATES, QUESTION PRESENTED," accessed January 2, 2023
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, United States v. Fischer, decided April 7, 2023
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "Fischer v. United States ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI," filed September 11, 2023
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    6. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Court to weigh in on scope of law used in Jan. 6 prosecutions," December 13, 2023
    7. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Court releases April argument calendar," February 21, 2024
    8. ↑ Casetext, "18 U.S.C. § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant," accessed March 19, 2024
    9. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued April 16, 2024
    10. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued April 16, 2024
    11. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Fischer_v._United_States&oldid=9599952"