What does the US Supreme Court’s obstruction ruling mean for the January 6 riot cases?

Friday’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that federal prosecutors were wrong to charge a man for his role in the assault on the Capitol in Washington on January 6, 2021 could affect another 249 cases against those involved, as well as Donald Trump.

The court found that the Justice Department misused a law passed after the collapse of energy company Enron Corp when it charged defendant Joseph Fischer with corruptly obstructing an official proceeding: Congress’ certification of President Joe Biden’s victory over Trump.

Here’s a look at other Capitol riot cases that could be revisited following the court’s ruling:

Oath Keepers and Proud Boys leaders

Two of the Justice Department’s most high-profile cases from January 6 targeted leaders of the far-right groups Oath Keepers and Proud Boys.

In separate trials, Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodesand former Proud Boys president Enrique Tarrio, along with his accomplices, were convicted of obstructing an official proceeding.

Rhodes and Tarrio, as well as some of their co-defendants, were also convicted of other serious crimes including seditious conspiracy, a Civil War-era law.

In cases like this one involving multiple felony convictions, legal experts said they don’t believe the ruling will lead to drastic changes.

While the defendants could ask judges to throw out the obstruction charge and resentence them, having the other felony convictions might not materially change their prison terms.

“I think the U.S. Attorney’s office has done a good job of not putting all their eggs in one basket,” said Nick Smith, defense attorney for Proud Boys leader Ethan Nordean.

One of the first tests of how the ruling could affect the defendants in the Oath Keepers case could come July 26, when Thomas Caldwell is sentenced.

Caldwell, who was tried alongside Rhodes and several other Oath Keeper defendants, was acquitted of all but two felonies — obstructing the certification of Congress and tampering with evidence — after he deleted 11 photographs later recovered by the FBI.

If one of his two convictions is overturned, it could have a substantial impact on his sentence, his lawyer said.

The ‘Q-Anon Shaman’

Jacob Chansley, also known as QAnon Shamanbecame known as the face of the January 6 attack after he entered the Capitol wearing face paint and a hat with furry horns.

He is among a group of defendants who pleaded guilty to a single count of obstructing an official proceeding. In exchange, prosecutors dropped the remaining charges, including a felony charge of civil disorder and other misdemeanors.

He was sentenced to 41 months in prison but was released early.

The defendants, including Chansley, who pleaded guilty only to obstructing an official proceeding, could seek to vacate their sentences, although the Justice Department could seek to reinstate the other charges that were dropped as part of the plea agreement.

“It’s not necessarily a get-out-of-jail-free ticket,” said defense attorney Richard Willstatter.

The case of Donald Trump

The most prominent defendant facing charges of obstruction of an official proceeding is former President Trump.

Special prosecutor Jack Smith is prosecuting Trump in Washington for his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. In that case, Trump faces four felony charges, two of which involve obstructing an official proceeding.

But some legal experts say that regardless of the court’s ruling, prosecutors still have strong arguments they can use to keep alive the obstruction charges against the former president — namely, that Trump was involved in a conspiracy to obstruct Congress’ certification of votes by introducing “false ballot lists.”

“In Trump’s case, that will be a real option,” said Randall Eliason, a former federal prosecutor.

Connect with the Voice of America! Subscribe to our channels Youtube, WhatsApp and to the newsletter. Turn on notifications and follow us on Facebook, X and Instagram.