Prosecutors have brought charges under the evidence-tampering provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to curb misconduct on Wall Street. This comes after the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in favor of Jan. 6 defendant Joseph Fischer, a former police officer charged under an accounting law for briefly entering the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The decision is expected to complicate federal government prosecutions related to the Capitol security breach during the 2020 presidential election certification process. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson concurring. Justice Jackson also wrote a separate concurring opinion. Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissented, with Justice Barrett criticizing the court for contorting the federal statute used to charge Mr. Fischer. The case’s outcome could affect numerous Jan. 6 prosecutions, including that of former President Donald Trump, who faces charges related to the same incident.
The chief justice expressed concern that the interpretation of the law could lead to criminalizing everyday activities, potentially subjecting activists and lobbyists to lengthy prison sentences.
He pointed out that even a peaceful protester could be charged under the law and face up to 20 years in prison, as acknowledged by the government during oral arguments.
Furthermore, the government could potentially prosecute lobbying activities that influence official proceedings under the same law, raising questions about the plausibility of such interpretations.
As a result, the Supreme Court overturned the D.C. Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings in line with the court’s opinion.
Justice Jackson concurred with the majority, emphasizing that the law does not cover all forms of obstructive conduct.
She highlighted that while disrupting the peaceful transfer of power is a serious issue, the current case focuses on a narrower legal question.
On the other hand, Justice Barrett dissented, arguing that the majority improperly narrowed the law without considering the intent of Congress.
She emphasized that it is Congress’s role to determine the scope of liability under the law, and the Executive Branch has the discretion to prosecute cases within those boundaries.
Justices Sotomayor and Kagan also joined the dissenting opinion.
