Supreme Court limits obstruction charge for Jan. 6 rioters. Ruling could affect Californians

Capitol rioters could get convictions overturned and reduced prison sentences now that the U.S. Supreme Court decided Friday that federal prosecutors should not have charged defendants under a certain federal law unless they destroyed or attempted to impair necessary records or documents.

Three Sacramento-area defendants were convicted on the felony charge at the center of the arguments, obstructing an official proceeding, in connection to disrupting the certification of 2020 presidential election results.

One of the Sacramento-area rioters is also serving time for impeding police officers on Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of former President Donald Trump’s supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol and forced Congress to evacuate and delay certifying the 2020 election for about six hours.

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision Friday that included conservatives and liberals, ruled that the felony charge at the center of the case should only be applied to destroying or attempting to destroy “records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding.”

The case, Fischer v. United States, questioned whether federal prosecutors should have used the obstruction charge which, before being used against Jan. 6 rioters, was mainly used against people tampering with business records.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. He was joined by most conservatives and Biden-appointee Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson who, in a separate opinion agreeing with the majority, said Jan. 6 defendants could still face charges under the law if they attempted to impair the “availability or integrity of things used during the January 6 proceeding,” such as electoral vote certificates.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the dissent, joined by two of the court’s liberals, in which she said the majority did “textual backflips” to narrow the scope of the federal law in question. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority.

Overall, however, Roberts wrote, “Prosecutors have to prove that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects or other things used in an office proceeding, or attempted to do so.”

More than 355 of the 1,424 Capitol riot defendants have been charged with obstruction of an official proceeding, according to the U.S. Justice Department.

Sacramento-area defendants convicted on obstruction

▪ Jorge Aaron Riley, who was among the first to enter the Capitol on Jan. 6, was sentenced in September 2023 to 18 months in prison followed by two years of supervised release. Riley, 46, pleaded guilty to obstruction of an official proceeding last year and did not appeal his conviction or sentence, in accordance with his plea agreement.

A federal judge also ordered him to pay a $100 fine and $2,000 in restitution to the Architect of the Capitol. The Sacramento Army veteran has a release date in November, according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP).

Tim Zandel, a veteran Sacramento defense attorney who represented Riley, said in a phone call on Friday that he would be working to get Riley out of prison and ask the court to overturn his conviction.

▪ Sean Michael McHugh, who used bear spray on police officers and encouraged rioters onward with a megaphone, was sentenced to 78 months — 6½ years — in prison, a federal judge decided in September 2023. McHugh, 37, also got three years of supervised release and was ordered to pay a $5,000 fine and $2,000 in restitution to the Architect of the Capitol.

McHugh, a construction worker from Auburn, has a release date in December 2026, according to BOP.

He appealed. His case was on hold pending the outcome of this Supreme Court case.

The federal defender listed for his appeal did not respond to an email for comment when the court heard arguments in April, nor did she immediately respond after the court released its ruling on Friday.

McHugh was convicted in April 2023 of assaulting, resisting or impeding officers using a dangerous weapon and obstruction of an official proceeding. He was held in custody since May 27, 2021, with some of that time served offsetting his prison sentence.

▪ Tommy Frederick Allan, who scaled the Capitol on a rope and stole an American flag and documents from the Senate chamber, was sentenced in December 2022 to 21 months in prison and three years probation. A federal judge also ordered him to pay a $100 fine and $2,000 to the Architect of the Capitol.

Allan, 56, was released from prison in May, according to BOP. He had pleaded guilty in August 2022 to obstructing an official proceeding and waived his right to appeal.

Lawyers who had represented him didn’t respond to an email seeking comment in April. They did not immediately respond after the court released the decision on Friday.

What was the Supreme Court case about?

Fischer v. United States got its start in March 2022 when a district court judge dismissed federal obstruction charges against three Jan. 6 defendants, including Joseph W. Fischer, a former police officer from Pennsylvania.

Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, said the charge only applied if the defendant took action against “a document, record, or other object” to impede an official proceeding.

The charge of obstructing an official proceeding became law through the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The law was written in response to major U.S. accounting and corporate scandals — notably when the Enron energy company’s auditing firm destroyed potentially incriminating documents about widespread fraud within Enron. That statute carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.

A three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, all appointed by Democratic presidents, in a 2-1 decision reversed the the district court’s opinion, saying the text broadened past the destruction of records. The defendants appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, in its decision on Friday, directed the lower court to hold further proceedings on whether Fischer could still be prosecuted under its interpretation of the law.

A lawyer for the Jan. 6 defendants, Jeffrey T. Green, had argued before the Supreme Court in April that the law narrowly applies to the destruction of records, documents or other objects — not physically disrupting Congress.

Meanwhile U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar, on behalf of the government, said the ask and answer was simple: “Did people obstruct an official proceeding?” Yes, she said. Prelogar said that lawyers for the Jan. 6 defendants was trying to limit the scope of the statute by combining two adjacent parts of it.

While the Supreme Court was considering the case, some federal judges delayed sentencing Jan. 6 defendants. The ruling might affect Trump in the federal case that accuses him of plotting to overturn the 2020 election.