这最高法院的裁决周五，缩小了针对300多名被控与1月6日袭击美国国会大厦有关的个人的一项关键阻碍法规，可能会影响司法部在三年内提起的几十起案件，因为检察官说，前总统唐纳德·特朗普的一群支持者扰乱了国会对他竞选失败的认证。
在6比3的意见中，法院的大多数裁定，在被告无法证明他们的行为损害了在中断的诉讼中使用的实际物证的完整性的情况下，检察官对被告使用指控是越界的。
司法部长梅里克·加兰在周五的一份声明中表示，司法部将采取“适当的措施来遵守法院的裁决”，同时指出，迄今为止被指控的1400多名被告中的“绝大多数”1月6日探测器不会受到影响。
根据华盛顿特区美国检察官办公室的数据，在249起被告被指控或被判有争议的妨碍法令的案件中，没有一起案件是他们面临的唯一刑事指控。
“今天的决定将对一小部分案件产生最重大的影响:被告被定罪和判刑的唯一重罪是《美国法典》第18编第1512(c)(2)条，”该办公室在发给记者的一份情况说明书中说。“总共约有52人因这一指控而被定罪和判刑，没有其他重罪;在这些人当中，只有27人目前正在服刑，不到国会大厦泄密案所有指控案件的2%。
华盛顿特区地方法院负责监督国会大厦骚乱案件的法官周五已经开始对法院的裁决做出回应，包括至少一个被告被判犯有妨碍法令和其他重罪的案件。
华盛顿地区法官达布尼·弗里德里希(Dabney Friedrich)向1月6日被定罪的暴徒盖伊·雷菲特(Guy Reffitt)的检察官和辩护律师发出命令，要求他们根据最高法院的裁决，就该案的未来诉讼程序进行协商并提出一份时间表。雷菲特是第一个将他的案件提交审判的国会大厦违规案被告。
弗里德里希进一步告诉各方与法院联系，为雷菲特的重新判决安排一个日期。
2022年8月，瑞菲特被判超过七年监禁多项重罪指控，包括现在受到法院裁决影响的妨碍指控。
尽管最高法院做出了裁决，但如果检察官有证据表明被告有意专门阻止国会签署1月6日诉讼中使用的实际选举认证记录，他们可能仍有有限的途径继续推动对被告提出指控。
凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊法官(Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson)也持赞同意见，认为即使是在周五的裁决中提出质疑的被告、前警官约瑟夫·费舍尔(Joseph Fischer)在案件被发回重审后，仍有可能被判有罪，如果检察官能够证明他的行为“涉及损害(或试图损害)1月6日诉讼期间使用的物品的可用性或完整性。”
对该法规的这种解读也可能有助于特别顾问杰克·史密斯在他的联邦选举干预案.
在去年提交给最高法院的法律简报中，史密斯的检察官表示，即使法院支持费舍尔对该法规的解释，也不应该影响史密斯对特朗普的两项类似指控，因为他涉嫌参与阻碍1月6日的认证。
他们的理由是:虽然针对个别暴徒阻挠或改变与诉讼程序有关的物证的案件可能更难立案，但特朗普的起诉书确实声称与特定文件有关——所谓的“假选举人”提供的虚假证明，虚假证明特朗普在摇摆州的胜利输给了乔·拜登。
Dozens of Jan. 6 cases face uncertainty after Supreme Court narrows prosecutors' use of obstruction charge
TheSupreme Court's rulingFriday narrowing a key obstruction statute used against more than 300 individuals charged in connection with the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol could affect dozens of cases brought by the Justice Department in the three years since prosecutors say a mob of former President Donald Trump's supporters disrupted Congress' certification of his election loss.
In a 6-3 opinion, the majority of the court ruled that prosecutors overstepped in using the charge against defendants in cases where defendants were unable to show their actions impaired the integrity of actual physical evidence used in a disrupted proceeding.
In a statement Friday, Attorney General Merrick Garland said the Justice Department would be taking "appropriate steps to comply with the Court's ruling," while noting the "vast majority" of the more than 1,400 defendants charged thus far in itsJan. 6 probewould remain unimpacted.
According to the U.S. attorney's office for Washington, D.C., of the 249 cases where defendants have either been charged or convicted of the obstruction statute at issue, there are no cases in which it is the only criminal charge they faced.
"Today's decision will most significantly impact a narrow band of cases: those where the only felony for which a defendant was convicted and sentenced was 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2)," the office said in a fact sheet sent to reporters. "In total, approximately 52 individuals have been convicted and sentenced on that charge and no other felony; of those individuals, only 27 are currently serving a sentence of incarceration -- less than 2 percent of all charged cases arising from the Capitol Breach."
Judges in D.C.'s district court overseeing the Capitol riot cases already began responding Friday to the court's ruling, including in at least one case where a defendant was convicted of the obstruction statute alongside other felonies.
D.C. District Judge Dabney Friedrich issued an order for prosecutors and defense attorneys for convicted Jan. 6 rioter Guy Reffitt, who was the first Capitol breach defendant to take his case to trial, to confer and propose a schedule for future proceedings in the case in light of the Supreme Court's ruling.
Friedrich further told parties to contact the court to schedule a date for Reffitt's resentencing.
In August of 2022, Reffitt was sentenced to more thanseven years in prisonon multiple felony counts, including the obstruction charge now impacted by the court's ruling.
Despite the Supreme Court's ruling, prosecutors may still have a limited path to continue pushing for the charge's application against defendants if they have evidence that a defendant intended to specifically prevent Congress from signing off on the physical electoral certification records used in the Jan. 6 proceedings.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson left open the possibility that even the defendant who brought the challenge at issue in Friday's ruling, former police officer Joseph Fischer, could still be convicted of the charge after his case was remanded, should prosecutors be able to show his conduct "involved the impairment (or the attempted impairment) of the availability or integrity of things used during the January 6 proceeding."
Such a reading of the statute could also help special counsel Jack Smith in his argument for the obstruction charge's application against former President Donald Trump in his federalelection interference case.
In a legal brief with the Supreme Court last year, Smith's prosecutors said that even if the court sided with Fischer's interpretation of the statute, it should not impact the two similar charges Smith indicted Trump over for his involvement in allegedly obstructing the Jan. 6 certification.
Their reasoning: While a case may be harder to make against individual rioters in obstructing or altering physical evidence connected to the proceeding, the Trump indictment does allege a tie to specific documents -- the fraudulent certificates delivered by so-called "fake electors" that falsely certified a Trump victory in swing states he lost to Joe Biden.
