SCOTUS Narrows Obstruction Charges For J6 Rioters, Eviscerates Federal Agencies’ Interpretation Of Laws

NBC News reports:

The Supreme Court on Friday ruled in favor of a former police officer who is seeking to throw out an obstruction charge for joining the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, in a ruling that could benefit former President Donald Trump.

The justices on a 6-3 vote handed a win to defendant Joseph Fischer, who is among hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants — including Trump — who have been charged with obstructing an official proceeding over the effort to prevent Congress’ certification of President Joe Biden’s election victory.

The court concluded that the law, enacted in 2002 as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act after the Enron accounting scandal, was only intended to apply in limited circumstances involving tampering with physical evidence.

The Washington Post reports:

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a constitutional challenge to anti-camping laws that allow cities to ban homeless people from sleeping in public spaces — a decision that has significant implications for how local officials address the nation’s homelessness crisis.

In a 6-3 ruling, the court said homelessness is not a status protected by the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, even when a community offers no access to indoor shelter for homeless people.

Writing for the majority, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said the problem of homelessness is complex, but the Eighth Amendment “does not authorize federal judges to wrest those rights and responsibilities from the American people and in their place dictate this Nation’s homelessness policy.”

Courthouse News reports:



The Supreme Court overruled a key administrative law ruling Friday, tossing out four decades of precedent and limiting the government’s ability to interpret federal laws.

Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council gave deference to federal agencies’ interpretation of statutes. For 40 years, the precedent has been the backbone of administrative law, limiting judicial decision-making in favor of agency expertise.

Two years ago, the conservative supermajority created a carveout from Chevron, allowing judges to discard agency deference if the contested regulation concerns a major question. The justices already used the broad ruling to question the government’s authority to regulate air pollution and forgive student loans.