WASHINGTON D.C. — The Supreme Court is wrapping up its term with an absolute earthquake of a week. In a massive 6-3 decision that could directly impact the federal prosecution of President Donald Trump, the Court sided with a January 6 defendant challenging the Justice Department’s aggressive use of a federal obstruction statute.
But that wasn’t the only bombshell. The justices also handed down a landmark ruling on homeless encampments and delivered a highly controversial, temporarily leaked decision regarding emergency abortions in Idaho.
Here is the breakdown of the decisions shaking up Washington.
THE JANUARY 6 OBSTRUCTION RULING
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of Joseph Fischer, a former police officer attempting to have his obstruction charge dismissed for his participation in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot.
Fischer, along with hundreds of other defendants including Donald Trump, was charged under 18 U.S. Code 1512, a statute passed in 2002 as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in response to the Enron accounting disaster. The law carries a massive maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.
The Supreme Court found that the DOJ had interpreted the law far too broadly. The conservative-majority Court ruled that the provision was only meant to be applicable in specific situations involving the altering or destruction of physical evidence.
What This Means for Donald Trump:
-
The Impact: Trump currently faces four charges in his federal election interference case, including one count of obstructing an official proceeding and one count of conspiracy to do so.
-
The Caveat: NBC News noted that while this is a massive win for Fischer, prosecutors argue a stricter interpretation could still apply to Trump’s specific actions. Furthermore, even if the obstruction charges are tossed for rioters like Fischer, other charges like assaulting a police officer or entering a restricted building remain fully in place.
-
Next Steps: The Supreme Court returned the matter to lower courts to decide if the DOJ can still prosecute Fischer under this newly revised, strictly narrowed legal understanding.
CRACKING DOWN ON HOMELESS ENCAMPMENTS
In a separate 6-3 decision, the Court delivered a massive victory for local governments struggling with public camping. The justices ruled that an Oregon city’s policy prohibiting individuals from sleeping outside did not violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual” punishment.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Neil Gorsuch shut down the idea that federal judges should be micromanaging local homelessness policies.
“Homelessness is complex. Its causes are many. So maybe the public policy responses required to address it,” Gorsuch wrote. “At bottom, the question this case presents is whether the Eighth Amendment grants federal judges primary responsibility for assessing those causes and devising those responses. It does not.”
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson fiercely dissented. Sotomayor argued that the majority left the most vulnerable in society with “an impossible choice: Either stay awake or be arrested.”
THE “BAFFLING” IDAHO ABORTION DISMISSAL
The most chaotic moment of the week surrounded Idaho’s near-total abortion ban and the federal EMTALA law requiring emergency rooms to provide “stabilizing treatments.” After a draft of the ruling was inadvertently leaked on the Court’s website on Wednesday, the official ruling dropped on Thursday—and it infuriated the conservative wing.
In a highly rare move, the Court dismissed the writs of certiorari as “improvidently granted” and invalidated its previous stays, effectively allowing emergency abortions to continue in Idaho for the time being while lower courts hear the merits of the case. Chief Justice Roberts, along with Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett, concurred, noting the shape of the cases had “substantially shifted.”
Justice Samuel Alito (joined by Justice Clarence Thomas) unleashed a scathing dissent, calling the about-face completely “baffling.”
“Nothing legally relevant has occurred since January 5,” Alito torched the majority. “Altogether, we have more than 1,300 pages of briefing to assist us, and we heard nearly two hours of argument… Apparently, the Court has simply lost the will to decide the easy but emotional and highly politicized question that the case presents. That is regrettable.”
