![cover image](https://wikiwandv2-19431.kxcdn.com/_next/image?url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol_DSC09156_%252850826223403%2529_%2528cropped_to_gallows%2529.jpg/640px-2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol_DSC09156_%252850826223403%2529_%2528cropped_to_gallows%2529.jpg&w=640&q=50)
Fischer v. United States
Court case relating to January 6 Capitol attack / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the 2024 decision relating to the January 6 attack. For the 2000 decision on the federal bribery statute, see Fischer v. United States (2000).
Fischer v. United States, (Docket No. 23-5572), was a United States Supreme Court case about the proper use of the felony charge of obstructing an official proceeding, established in the Sarbanes–Oxley Act, against participants in the January 6 United States Capitol attack. The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in June 2024 that the charge only applied to tampering with physical evidence used in an official proceeding.
Quick Facts Fischer v. United States, Argued April 16, 2024 Decided June 28, 2024 ...
Fischer v. United States | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Argued April 16, 2024 Decided June 28, 2024 | |
Full case name | Joseph W. Fischer v. United States |
Docket no. | 23-5572 |
Argument | Oral argument |
Case history | |
Prior | Dismissed charge of obstruction, 1:21-cr-234-CJN (D.D.C. 2022); reversed, 64 F.4th 329 (D.C. Cir. 2023) |
Questions presented | |
Did the D.C. Circuit err in construing 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) ("Witness, Victim, or Informant Tampering"), which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, to include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence?[1] | |
Holding | |
To prove a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), the Government must establish 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. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Roberts, joined by Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Jackson |
Concurrence | Jackson |
Dissent | Barrett, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan |
Laws applied | |
Sarbanes-Oxley Act |
Close