The Supreme Court handed another win to two more January 6 defendants, sending their case back to a lower court for reconsideration.
The Supreme Court declined to weigh in on two petitions filed by defendants Edward Lang and Garret Miller on Tuesday until an appeals court in D.C. reconsiders their obstruction charges in light of their landmark ruling in Fischer v. United States.
"The judgment is vacated, and the cases are remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for further consideration in light of Fischer v. United States," the court's order list reads.
The Supreme Court issued its ruling in Fischer on Friday, agreeing that federal prosecutors went too far in bringing obstruction charges against January 6 defendants. It was the first Capitol attack case that the court agreed to hear since the riot took place in 2021.
Over 300 January 6 defendants had been charged with obstruction of an official proceeding in the wake of the attack. More than 100 had already been convicted and received prison sentences for an identical charge, which carries a prison sentence of up to 20 years.
Lang's attorney Norman Pattis previously told Newsweek that the use of the obstruction charge was an "abuse of the federal penal code." Newsweek reached out to Lang in light of Tuesday's order list for comment.
Lang, who was arrested and charged for his role in the riot after he posted photos and videos on social media placing him at the Capitol that day, has been in a New York jail for nearly 40 months awaiting trial. He made headlines last month for organizing a militia from inside his jail cell.
Miller, whose case was also sent back to the D.C. appeals court, is the Texas man who threatened Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez after participating in the Capitol attack. He was sentenced to 38 months in prison in February 2023.
Both Lang and Miller face multiple counts of various charges. Although their obstruction charges could be thrown out in light of Fischer, the others, which include assault, are likely to remain.
"Prosecutors have to prove that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects or other things used in an office proceeding, or attempted to do so," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority opinion in Fischer.
Three of the justices dissented, including Justice Amy Coney Barrett, an appointee of former President Donald Trump.
In a dissent joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, Barrett wrote that the court's ruling "does textual backflips to find some way—any way—to narrow the reach" of the federal statute.
"Section 1512(c)(2) is a very broad provision, and admittedly, events like January 6th were not its target. (Who could blame Congress for that failure of imagination?)," Barrett said. "But statutes often go further than the problem that inspired them, and under the rules of statutory interpretation, we stick to the text anyway."
fairness meter
To Rate This Article
About the writer
Katherine Fung is a Newsweek reporter based in New York City. Her focus is reporting on U.S. and world politics. ... Read more
