The DOJ’s decision to drop nearly half of the January 6 obstruction charges marks a pivotal legal shift following a Supreme Court ruling.
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 “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.
DOJ Drops Half of January 6 Obstruction Charges Following Supreme Court Ruling
The Biden Department of Justice dismissed nearly half of the obstruction charges initially filed against January 6 Capitol riot participants. This decision follows a Supreme Court ruling requiring the DOJ to reassess the legal basis for these charges. The DOJ’s legal realignment aligns with the Supreme Court’s interpretative framework, impacting ongoing and future cases, and modifying potential outcomes and penalties for implicated individuals.
Federal prosecutors dropped charges for some rioters due to the Supreme Court ruling, which narrowed the scope of “obstruction of an official proceeding.” The DOJ is redefining its use of this charge. In many cases, dismissing the charge proved more efficient. The Supreme Court’s decision significantly influences how the DOJ handles ongoing prosecutions of January 6 defendants.
Biden DOJ Dropped Nearly Half Of Pending Obstruction Charges For Jan 6 Defendants After Supreme Court Ruling | The Daily Caller https://t.co/686D9mnnUC
— LeoTerrell (@TheLeoTerrell) September 11, 2024
Impact on Individual Defendants
Arthur Jackman, a Proud Boys member, saw his obstruction charge dropped but still faces other charges. Jackman and co-defendants received plea deal offers. The DOJ extended a plea deal to Kellye SoRelle, attorney for the Oath Keepers, with two of her charges stemming from the affected obstruction count. U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols oversaw several defendants whose obstruction charges were dropped, including Gina Bisignano and Mark Sahady.
Dropping obstruction charges allows quicker resolution of certain cases. Many defendants initially charged with obstruction now face lesser charges, shifting the DOJ’s approach. Federal prosecutors are extending plea deals to expedite proceedings.
Ongoing DOJ Actions and Future Implications
Despite the Supreme Court ruling, the DOJ continues obstruction charges against two defendants, Don and Shawndale Chilcoat, accused of entering the Senate floor during the riot. This indicates the DOJ’s intent to pursue some obstruction cases despite narrowing criteria. The obstruction charge, carrying a 20-year maximum sentence, is pivotal in plea deals and distinguishing involvement levels in the riot.
The Supreme Court’s decision, specifying that the obstruction statute applies to actions impairing physical evidence, affects many prosecutions. The DOJ uses a civil disorder charge, with a five-year maximum sentence, as an alternative. This ruling might impact special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of former president Donald Trump, facing two obstruction-related charges.
The ramifications of the Supreme Court decision are likely to persist. The DOJ continues to assess the ruling’s broader impact, with over 350 rioters initially charged with obstruction. While prosecutors believe the ruling should not hinder all prosecutions, it has led to delays in sentencing and requests for resentencing.
