Supreme Court Directive Triggers Major Shift in DOJ’s January 6 Prosecutions

Following a directive from the Supreme Court, the Biden DOJ has decided to drop nearly half of the obstruction charges against individuals involved in the January 6 Capitol riot.

At a Glance

Federal prosecutors are dropping charges for some Jan. 6 rioters following a Supreme Court ruling.
The ruling narrowed the government’s use of the charge of “obstruction of an official proceeding.”
The Justice Department is redefining its use of the affected charge.
Dropping the charge has been more efficient in some cases.

Supreme Court’s Directive and DOJ’s Response

The Supreme Court’s ruling has led the Department of Justice to drop nearly half of the obstruction charges lodged against January 6 Capitol rioters. This directive questions the legal foundation of these charges, forcing the DOJ to reassess its prosecutorial strategies. The narrowed scope of the “obstruction of an official proceeding” charge means many cases are now under review, leading to a significant reduction in the overall number of charges.

Some high-profile cases illustrate this shift. For instance, Arthur Jackman, a member of the Proud Boys, had his obstruction charge dropped. However, he still faces other charges. Similarly, a plea deal was extended to Kellye SoRelle, an attorney for the Oath Keepers, after two of her four charges, both stemming from the challenged obstruction statute, were affected.

Impact on Ongoing and Future Cases

The DOJ is redefining its approach to the “obstruction of an official proceeding” charge. Over 350 rioters were initially charged under this provision, and several of these cases are now being reevaluated. The ruling emphasized that the obstruction statute applies strictly to actions involving the impairment of physical evidence, impacting many prosecutorial decisions.

The legal landscape reshaped by the Supreme Court will also influence the cases overseen by U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, where multiple defendants have seen their obstruction charges dropped. Gina Bisignano, who stormed the Capitol, and Mark Sahady, vice president of Super Happy Fun America, both had their charges dismissed.

Broader Ramifications and Future Directions

The ramifications of the Supreme Court decision are broad and ongoing. The Justice Department continues to assess the wider impact of the ruling, which may extend its influence through the summer and fall. Sentencing for some defendants have been delayed, while others seek resentencing. The ruling’s effects may also be seen in the prosecution of former President Donald Trump, who faces two obstruction-related charges.

The DOJ’s decision to drop charges has led to more efficient case handling in some instances. However, the department aims to continue using the obstruction statute in appropriate cases, as evidenced by its pending charges against Don and Shawndale Chilcoat, who are accused of entering the Senate floor during the January 6 riot. This development marks the first indication since the ruling that prosecutors will still pursue some obstruction charges in Capitol riot cases.

The ongoing impacts and reinterpretations following the Supreme Court’s ruling underscore the intricate balance between judicial oversight and prosecutorial discretion. As cases continue to unfold, the DOJ must navigate these legal complexities while ensuring justice and accountability for the events of January 6.