Supreme Court Sends Two Jan. 6 Cases Back for Reconsideration

Protesters outside the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Samuel Corum/Getty Images

The Supreme Court decided on July 2 to send the cases of two Jan. 6 defendants back to lower courts after ruling this past week that the federal government was wrong to use an accounting law to charge Jan. 6 defendant Joseph Fischer with obstructing an official proceeding.

The follow-up decisions were made after the nation’s highest court ruled in Fischer v. United States on June 28 that a provision in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 18 U.S. Code Section 1512, which focuses on ensuring that documentation is made available for official proceedings, did not apply to the case.

The evidence-tampering legislation was enacted in the wake of fraud-related scandals at Enron Corp. and other major corporations in the early 2000s. Enron employed dubious accounting practices to disguise falling profits and exaggerate earnings, and its employees reportedly began destroying paperwork when they learned that indictments were on the horizon.

Some Jan. 6 defendants argued against the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) use of Sarbanes-Oxley, saying they didn’t interfere with documentation and that their efforts at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, to protest the 2020 presidential election could lead to 20 years in prison, a possible sentence they said was excessive.

On June 28, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the Supreme Court’s 6–3 opinion on Fischer that the government relied on a “novel interpretation” of the statute that swept too broadly.

He said it could criminalize innocent actions by lobbyists and peaceful protesters and put them at risk of 20 years imprisonment.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a concurring opinion in which she agreed with the majority that Section 1512(c)(2) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act “does not reach ‘all forms of obstructive conduct.’”

The ruling is expected to make it more difficult for the federal government to move forward with an obstruction-of-an-official-proceeding charge against former President Donald Trump.

The two cases affected by the new Supreme Court ruling concern defendants Edward Jacob Lang and Garret Miller.

According to the Justice Department, Mr. Lang was arrested on Jan. 16, 2021, and indicted on Jan. 29, 2021. He entered not guilty pleas to all counts on Feb. 9, 2021.

Mr. Lang was charged with 11 counts, according to an indictment.

Count Seven charged him with “Obstruction of an Official Proceeding and Aiding and Abetting, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1512(c)(2) and 2.”

The count stated that he “attempted to, and did, corruptly obstruct, influence, and impede an official proceeding, that is, a proceeding before Congress, by entering and remaining in the United States Capitol without authority and committing an act of civil disorder and engaging in disorderly and disruptive conduct and destroying federal property.”

Among the other charges are assaulting and resisting officers and doing so with a dangerous weapon, civil disorder, disruptive conduct, and engaging in violence.

In his petition to the Supreme Court, Mr. Lang argued that the charge under Section 1512 was not justified.

“A statute intended to combat financial fraud has been transformed into a blatant political instrument to crush dissent,” the document stated.

According to the petition, Mr. Lang moved to throw out the Section 1512 count before the trial and the federal district court granted the motion but a split U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit later reversed.

According to the DOJ, Mr. Miller was arrested on Jan. 20, 2021. He was indicted on Feb. 12, 2021, and a superseding indictment was issued on May 12, 2021, followed by a second superseding indictment on Nov. 10, 2021.

He entered not guilty pleas to all counts. The later indictment charged him with 12 counts in total.

Count Three charged him with “Obstruction of an Official Proceeding and Aiding and Abetting” under Section 1512(c)(2).

The count stated that Mr. Miller “attempted to, and did, corruptly obstruct, influence, and impede an official proceeding, that is, a proceeding before Congress, specifically, Congress’s certification of the Electoral College vote as set out in the Twelfth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and 3 U.S.C. [Sections] 15-18.”

Mr. Miller was charged with two counts of threatening to injure or kidnap. He allegedly communicated a threat “to kidnap and injure Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, specifically, by threatening to assassinate her.”

The other count alleged that he threatened a U.S. Capitol Police officer by saying he would “hug his neck with a nice rope,” adding “that the officer deserves to die,” and that it was “huntin’ season.”

Among the other counts against Mr. Miller were civil disorder, assaulting and resisting officers, disorderly and disruptive conduct, and parading, demonstrating, or picketing in the Capitol building.

In his Supreme Court petition, Mr. Miller also argued that the Section 1512 charge should be thrown out.

“Before January 6, no court had characterized political protest at the seat of government, however disorderly, as an obstruction-of-justice offense.”

The federal district court tossed the Section 1512 charge, but a divided D.C. Circuit later reversed.

In an unsigned order on July 2, the Supreme Court granted the petitions of Mr. Lang and Mr. Miller and vacated the rulings of the D.C. Circuit without holding oral arguments. No justices dissented.

At the same time, the justices sent the cases back to the circuit court for “further consideration in light of Fischer v. United States.”

Lawyers call this process GVR, for grant, vacate, and remand.

It is unclear when the D.C. Circuit will reconsider the cases.

Mr. Fischer’s attorney, Jeffrey T. Green of Bethesda, Maryland, told The Epoch Times on June 28 that because of the Supreme Court’s ruling, he expected the D.C. Circuit would dismiss the obstruction-of-an-official-proceeding charge against his client.

The Epoch Times has reached out to attorneys for both Mr. Lang and Mr. Miller for comment.