BLACKSBURG, Va. – Charges brought against capitol rioters, and former President Donald Trump — now under question.
“Not everybody in the court agreed,” Political science expert Karen Hult said.
She said this is just the latest in a string of split Supreme Court rulings.
“The Supreme Court is really disagreeing internally on how to interpret congressional statutory language,” Hult said.
But what they disagreed on Friday has caused people to question thousands of capitol riot charges. They decided in favor of Joseph Fischer, who was charged with obstruction of justice for his participation on Jan. 6.
“Fischer was a police officer in a small town in Pennsylvania who was charged with obstruction under federal criminal statutes. And what the Supreme Court decided in a split decision was, in fact, the Justice Department interpreted that statute too broadly,” Hult said.
But, Hult tells us while the word obstruction is thrown around a lot, it affects only certain people charged.
“It applies to about 27 people who are serving time for this conviction. A whole ranch of others are still waiting for trial. About 110 are waiting for sentencing or for trial...many people who received charges and have been convicted were not charged under this statute,” she said.
The obstruction of justice charge in question doesn’t pertain to trespassing or destruction of government property, but the attempt to stop the certification of the election.
“What the Supreme Court says is that they went a little bit too far given what the law itself was saying,” she said.
But what does that mean for people already convicted? Well in the case heard by the Supreme Court, Fischer’s case will go back to a lower court. And more will be re-sentenced or even retried.
“It’s too easy to say ‘This is partisan politics.’ I don’t think that’s the case. What is the case is the court saying, ‘Who should be making decisions here? Congress or the Department of Justice?’” Hult said.