The US Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to hear an appeal from a Jan. 6 Capitol riot defendant which will highlight a law used to charge hundreds of people in connection with that fateful day.

The case will decide whether defendant Joseph Fischer can be charged under a 2002 law which stemmed from the Enron collapse which makes it a crime to obstruct or impede an official proceeding (like pulling a fire alarm to delay a vote?). The law has been invoked against Trump, along with 327 Capitol riot defendants – which an appeals court said the government could continue to invoke.

HUGE NEWS: The Supreme Court will take up the case of Fischer v. United States, which deals with the misapplication of ‘obstruction of an official proceeding’ charges to J6 cases. This could result in a major victory for Donald Trump if the court strikes down the DOJ’s charges… pic.twitter.com/ZillRZtsW5

— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) December 13, 2023

Under the Corporate Fraud Accountability Act of 2002, anyone who “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” is subject to prosecution.

A key word in the provision, “otherwise,” has been key – as nearly every judge overseeing riot-related cases in DC federal court have agreed with government prosecutors that rioters who sought to prevent Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s 2020 victory were “otherwise” obstructing that proceeding. One judge, Carl J. Nichols, ruled that “otherwise” could apply to other kinds of document-tampering.

The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit disagreed in a split decision, which will now go to the Supreme Court for review.

“We cannot assume, and think it unlikely, that Congress used expansive language to address such narrow concerns,” wrote Judge Florence Pan, calling Nichols’s ruling a “cramped, document-focused interpretation.”

“We cannot assume, and think it unlikely, that Congress used expansive language to address such narrow concerns,” she wrote. “We must accept, and think it far more likely, that Congress said what it meant and meant what it said.”

This is huge SCOTUS granted cert on Fischer v. US, which challenges DOJ’s use of felony charge “Obstruction of an Official Proceeding” used to convict hundreds of J6 political prisoners This statute was intended to be used against people destroying documents DOJ weaponized… https://t.co/INr4L1zaM7

— DC_Draino (@DC_Draino) December 13, 2023

Defense attorneys have argued that such a broad interpretation could put many otherwise law-abiding activists at risk of felony charges, which Judge Gregory Katsas agreed with.

The decision to hear the case comes just two days after special counsel Jack Smith asked the Court to fast-track a decision on whether former President Trump is entitled to presidential immunity in his 2020 election interference case. The justices could decide as soon as next week whether to expedite the review.

Democrats aren’t happy

Of course, liberal / establishment news outlets framed it as ‘interference-adjacent’ in terms of the Trump prosecution, and have implied that the of the case is intended to help the former president in 2024.

* * *

Of course, we know how this will be spun…

I pray they rule in favor of Fischer, but I can already hear the media narrative: “The right wing US Supreme court is complicit in releasing hundreds of dangerous domestic terrorists who tried to bring down the country; will these insurrectionists try again?”

— Maynard (@ItIsMaynard) December 13, 2023

Supreme Court will hear Fischer v. US, a January 6 case challenging the scope of ‘Obstruction of an Official Proceeding’ which affects hundreds of J6 defendants. 2 of 4 charges in Trump’s DC case involve this charge. This should delay his DC trial. Jack Smith after hearing this: pic.twitter.com/JyGX98KNYW

— GoomBatz (@Goom_Batz) December 13, 2023