Skip to contentSkip to site index

New York Times - Top Stories

Anna Rose Layden for The New York Times
Alan Feuer
Alan Feuer
It’s taken three years, but a significant Jan. 6 issue finally reached the Supreme Court. Lawyers defending rioters have criticized prosecutors’ use of a particular obstruction law, saying they stretched the statute in an unprecedented way. Here's what happened today →
Alan Feuer
Alan Feuer
The main attraction of the obstruction law is that prosecutors needed a way to describe the central crime committed on Jan. 6: the disruption of the certification of the election that took place at the Capitol. This obstruction law seemed like the best fit.
Alan Feuer
Alan Feuer
During the argument, some of the conservative justices tried to tease out why Jan. 6 is covered by the statute and not, say, a pro-Palestinian protest on the Golden Gate Bridge or a protest at the court itself.
Alan Feuer
Alan Feuer
The government's representative, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, suggested the government had used the charge judiciously, so endorsing its use wouldn't lead to a wholesale criminalization of political protest.
Alan Feuer
Alan Feuer
She noted that only 350 of the 1,350 or so people indicted in connection with Jan. 6 were charged with the obstruction count. There had to be evidence that they committed obstruction and did so “corruptly,” as the law requires.
Alan Feuer
Alan Feuer
Overall, the court seemed most accepting of arguments that pointed out the potential harms in interpreting the obstruction law too broadly. The conservatives in particular seemed concerned that if the statute applied to Jan. 6 then it could be weaponized against a range of other political protests.

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT