A Supreme Court case not involving former President Donald Trump could have major ramifications for special counsel Jack Smith’s biggest case against him, legal analyst Jeffrey Rosen said on Saturday.
Trump, the overwhelming favorite to secure the 2024 GOP presidential nomination, is facing a historic four criminal indictments, two of which are at the federal level and are being overseen by Smith and the Department of Justice (DOJ). The most prominent of these cases is one concerning Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election that ultimately led to the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. The indictment charged Trump with four counts, conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights, all of which the former president has pleaded not guilty to.
On January 6, a group of Trump supporters violently protested the 2020 election results at the U.S. Capitol building in an alleged effort to block Congress from certifying then-President-elect Joe Biden’s Electoral College victory. Critics say the rioters were motivated by Trump’s unfounded claims of widespread voter fraud, while those pundits more sympathetic to them have claimed that the violence of the event has been overblown.
Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the Capitol riot case, initially set a trial start date for early March, but this has since been delayed as Trump’s legal team has attempted to argue that he has a wide-ranging immunity from prosecution from actions undertaken during his presidency. While a Washington, D.C., appeals court has dismissed the argument, the case now awaits a decision from the Supreme Court to either undertake the case or decline and uphold the appeals court ruling.
Drew Angerer/Getty Images
However, as argued by Rosen, a legal analyst and George Washington University Law School professor, during a Saturday appearance on CNN, another Supreme Court case currently in the works could also upend Smith’s case against Trump.
The case in question, Joseph W. Fischer v. United States, pertains to a Capitol riot defendant and alleges that prosecutors have been misapplying a law, 18 U.S.C. § 1512, in charging January 6 defendants, like Joseph W. Fischer, with obstruction of an official proceeding. If the Court, which will hear oral arguments on April 16, were to side with the defendant’s argument, it would throw a massive wrench into the prosecutions of numerous Capitol riot defendants, as well as Trump’s federal election interference case.
Fischer’s charges include assaulting a police officer, disorderly conduct in the Capitol, and obstruction of a congressional proceeding.
Rosen did not mince words when explaining how difficult such a ruling would make Smith’s job.
“…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 said. “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.”
Fritz Ulrich, a federal public defender representing Fischer, told Newsweek via email on Friday, “We will, of course, argue for a narrow construction of Section 1512(c)(2) consistent with its language and Congress’ expressed purpose in enacting it.”
Section 1512(c)(2) of U.S. code refers to “tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant.”
“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,” Ulrich added. “But we may be able to discern how some of the justices view the statutory language at issue.”
As of December 2023, 1,201 people from all 50 states have been charged in connection with the riot at the U.S. Capitol and 719 have pleaded guilty. Of those charged, 119 have been convicted of all charges, three have been acquitted, and 64 of 728 sentenced have served some sort of prison time. Eight cases have been dismissed.
Newsweek reached out to other legal experts on Sunday morning for comment. This story will be updated with any responses received.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.