Fischer v. U.S

What they ruled: Federal prosecutors improperly charged a Jan. 6 rioter with obstructing or impeding an official proceeding, using a statute that the court said must involve impairing “the availability or integrity” of records, documents or other objects.

Why it matters: The ruling essentially says that prosecutors overreached in using the charge against Jan. 6 defendants, since it was created to address document shredding and other fraud after the collapse of the energy giant Enron.

 Hundreds of charged or convicted rioters can now go back to court to ask for their charges to be thrown out. Most also face other charges or have completed their sentences, but a few dozen could see their jail time reduced.

The ruling could also affect the Justice Department’s stalled federal election interference case against Trump. Two of the four charges he faces are based on the obstruction statute. But prosecutors say those charges should still stand.

The Supreme Court narrowed the scope of an obstruction charge used against Jan. 6 defendants, in a 6-3 ruling authored by Chief Justice John Roberts. 

Whied this could be an example of textualism, an approach to the law that says that when interpreting a statute, a judge should first defer to the plain language as written by Congress. Critics have suggested that the mental gymnastics employed by the Court to reach the result in Fischer highlight how this Court often only pretends to deploy textualism in pursuit of its preferred outcome.