Supreme Court finds a route to leniency for some Jan. 6 traitors

The WaPo writes (not paywalled) about another ding on democracy (and the rule of law):

Justices strike obstruction charge for Jan. 6 rioter, likely impacting others

Hundreds have been charged with felony obstruction, among other counts, for their role in the 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol

Federal prosecutors improperly charged a Jan. 6 defendant with obstruction, the Supreme Court ruled on Friday, a decision that will likely upend many cases against rioters who disrupted the certification of the 2020 presidential election and which Donald Trump’s legal team may use to try to whittle down one of his criminal cases.

After the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol, federal prosecutors charged more than 350 participants in the pro-Trump mob with obstructing or impeding an official proceeding. The charge carries a 20-year maximum penalty and is part of a law enacted after the exposure of massive fraud and shredding of documents during the collapse of the energy giant Enron.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said prosecutors’ broad reading of the statute gives them too much discretion to seek a 20-year maximum sentence "for acts Congress saw fit to punish only with far shorter terms of imprisonment.”

Attorney General Merrick Garland said he was disappointed with the ruling but insisted it was not a body blow to the overall investigation and prosecution of the riot at the U.S. Capitol.  

“The vast majority of the more than 1,400 defendants charged for their illegal actions on January 6 will not be affected by this decision,” he added, noting that not a single Jan. 6 defendant was charged solely with the crime at issue in the Fischer case. “For the cases affected by today’s decision, the Department will take appropriate steps to comply with the Court’s ruling.”

What overall impact this will have is not clear. The dissent by Amy Coney Barrett — joined by Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — said the court’s reading of the obstruction statute is too limited and requires the majority to do “textual backflips to find some way — any way — to narrow the reach” of the law. Narrowing the reach of the law for radical right authoritarians is to be expected for this radical Republican court.