The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday issued a ruling that could upend hundreds of January 6th-related cases.
In the ruling, the court ordered that prosecutors who charged rioters with obstructing or impeding an official proceeding must show that they tampered with physical evidence in order to meet the criteria met by the statute.
The vote was 6-3, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissenting, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
In the explainer, SCOTUS Blog wrote, "The court holds that to prove a violation of the law, the government must show 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."
About 27 individuals are still in prison today and they could be released today because they haven't served their full charge.
ALSO READ: Rep. Byron Donalds, his gigantic Jim Crow myth and a forgotten fact about Black voters
The case the court was deciding involved Joseph Fischer, an off-duty Pennsylvania police officer who entered the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 and was charged with obstruction of an official proceeding. It's the same crime many other Jan .6 defendants have been charged.
Fischer, Edward Lang, and Garret Miller were indicted for their role in the riot. They were charged with "assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers and misdemeanor offenses of disorderly conduct," the indictment read. All of the charges were involved in the broader attempt to obstruct a congressional proceeding.
But Fischer's lawyers argued before that Supreme Court that the obstruction of a congressional proceedings charge should be thrown out because the law that he was charged with violating was only intended to apply to evidence tampering.
The decision will have major impact on Jack Smith's election interference case against Donald Trump, who is charged with the same crime.
ALSO READ: ‘They could have killed me’: Spycraft, ballots and a Trumped-up plot gone haywire
A lower court agreed with him, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for Washington, D.C. reversed it and it was ultimately sent to the Supreme Court.
"Some justices expressed concerns that the government’s interpretation of the law could sweep in too much conduct, while others appeared to agree with the government that the law was intended as a 'catchall' provision to cover all kinds of conduct," SCOTUSBlog said.
"And still others appeared to propose a narrower reading of the statute that would still allow the charge against Fischer to stand."
About 300 cases for Jan. 6 attackers will be impacted by the decision.
