Justice Barrett Dissents in Ruling for Jan. 6 Defendant

Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett at the Supreme Court in Washington, on April 23, 2021. (Erin Schaff/AFP via Getty Images)

Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissented in a major ruling that sided with a defendant who challenged an obstruction charge brought against hundreds of other defendants in the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, meanwhile, joined the majority opinion offered by Chief Justice John Roberts, but wrote her own concurring opinion.

Justice Roberts wrote that the law barring obstruction of an official proceeding is more limited than federal prosecutors asserted.

The law bars people from altering, destroying, mutilating, or concealing “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” and “otherwise obstruct[ing], influenc[ing], or imped[ing] any official proceeding or attempts to do so.”

The ruling focuses on the “otherwise” word, finding that, based on historical context, it only applies to the list of criminal activities listed before it.

Under the government’s broader interpretation, even peaceful protesters could be charged and face a sentence of up to 20 years in prison, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar has acknowledged. That interpretation would transform “this evidence-focused statute” into a “one-size-fits-all solution to obstruction of justice,” Justice Roberts said.

To prove a violation of the law, according to the majority, “the Government must 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 Jackson said in a concurring opinion that the majority’s finding was based on looking at the intent of Congress in crafting the law.

“The upshot is that, when interpreting the scope of a particular statute or rule, our assessment of the words that the drafters used informs our understanding of what the rule was designed to do. Discerning the rule’s purpose is critical when a court is called upon to interpret the provision,” she wrote.

The majority also consisted of Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

Justice Barrett said in a dissent that Jan. 6 rioters, including Joseph Fischer, who brought the case, by all accounts disrupted an official proceeding. “Given these premises, the case that Fischer can be tried for ‘obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding’ seems open and shut. So why does the Court hold otherwise?” she wrote.

“Because it simply cannot believe that Congress meant what it said,” she said, describing the law in question as “a very broad provision.”

Justice Barrett was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.