Republican justices on the U.S. Supreme Court appeared skeptical of a law used to prosecute over 300 January 6 defendants, and Donald Trump, as they heard oral arguments Tuesday.
"A decision rejecting the government’s interpretation of the law could not only disrupt those prosecutions but also eliminate two of the federal charges against former President Donald J. Trump in the case accusing him of plotting to subvert the 2020 election," The New York Times reports.
"January 6 insurrectionists had a great day in the Supreme Court today," Vox's Ian Millhiser reported. "Most of the justices seem to want to make it harder to prosecute January 6 rioters."
Millhiser on social media put it this way: "On Monday, the Supreme Court effectively eliminated the right to hold a Black Lives Matter protest in three US states. On Tuesday, the same justices were very, very afraid that January 6 insurrectionists are being treated unfairly."
READ MORE: ‘Scared to Death’: GOP Ex-Congressman Brings Hammer Down on ‘Weak’ Trump
Right-wing justices on the Supreme Court suggested the law, which makes it a crime to obstruct an official proceeding, could be used too broadly.
"Would a sit-in that disrupts a trial or access to a federal courthouse qualify?" Justice Neil Gorsuch asked, as NBC News reported. "Would a heckler in today's audience qualify, or at the State of the Union address? Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote, qualify for 20 years in federal prison?"
Some legal experts appeared stunned and disappointed by the right-wing justices' remarks.
"In oral argument today, Justice [Clarence] Thomas is minimizing the severity of the 1/6 insurrection at the Capitol. Perhaps that's because his wife was part of the conspiracy. What a disgrace that he's sitting on this case," attorney and frequent CNN guest Jeffrey Toobin commented.
READ MORE: ‘I Have a Bucket of Water’: Dems to Save Johnson’s Job Over GOPer Who Wants ‘World to Burn
"The text of the obstruction law the Supreme Court is considering today pretty clearly applies to January 6 defendants. Will the purportedly textualist conservative majority, as in Trump v. Anderson, once again bypass text to avoid accountability for Trump and his supporters?" asked former federal corruption prosecutor Noah Bookbinder, who is now president of the government watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).
"Supreme Court expressed concern that Jan 6 prosecutions could chill violent insurrections against democracy," wrote Scott Shapiro, a Yale Law School professor of law and professor of philosophy.
Elie Mystal, The Nation's justice correspondent, did not hold back.
"The six conservative justices are absolutely trying to figure out how to throw out the obstruction charges against their cousins and wives and pledge brothers who attacked the Capitol on January 6," he wrote.
Similar to Millhiser's comparison, Mystal remarked, "If you think that trash you just heard from the Supreme Court about protecting J6 rioters will *ever* be applied to peaceful Black protesters, think again."
READ MORE: ‘Something’s Fishy Here’: Trump’s Latest $175 Million Bond Filings Questioned by Experts
