BREAKING: SCOTUS Delivers Major Blow to Corrupt Biden DOJ — Overturns Use of 1512(c)(2) in J6 Cases, Massive Win for Political Prisoners


The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has overturned the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) use of 1512(c)(2), a statute pertaining to obstruction of an official proceeding, in cases related to the events of January 6th (J6).

This ruling signifies a major win for those political prisoners and is seen as a significant setback for the Biden regime.

This decision reveals that the Department of Justice unlawfully prosecuted over 350 Americans for their participation in January 6—a blatant misuse of the law aimed at punishing those who protested Biden’s election and at criminalizing political dissent.

The DoJ and U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves are prosecuting Donald Trump under 4 counts of protesting the 2020 presidential election.  Two of the four charges are for violating 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2) and (k) for conspiring to do so.  Because the other two counts are fuzzy, Special Counsel Jack Smith’s case against Trump could collapse in an ocean of vagueness without the only two clear counts.

Hundreds of Defendants have taken plea deals because of the severe threat of being charged with 18 U.S.C. 1512.  Attorney Roger Roots is battling cases where the DoJ offers plea deals usually of “the four misdemeanors” and then adds felonies like 1512 as retaliation against Defendants who won’t plead guilty.

Judge Carl Nichols dismissed 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2) charges against three January 6 Defendants – Jake Lang, Garrett Miller, and Joseph Fischer – on the grounds that the conduct alleged was outside of the reach of the statute.  The statute was passed as a species of obstruction of justice by tampering with evidence.  It has never been used in this way before.  Prosecutors are in effect “legislating from the Grand Jury room,” inventing non-existent crimes as if they were Congress.

Trouble is:  the DoJ has never used this statute before for demonstrations, even those protests that have descended into skirmishes, violence, riots, arson, assault, death or worse.  Washington, D.C. was under siege of arson and riots in 2017 before and during Donald Trump’s inauguration. If the DoJ has never before believed that 18 U.S.C. 1512 covers demonstrations, why should the Supreme Court take a different view today?

Now, in a 6-3 vote, the court holds that to prove a violation of the law, the government must show that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so.

“To prove a violation of Section 1512(c)(2), the Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of rec-ords, documents, objects, or as we earlier explained, other things used in the proceeding, or attempted to do so. See supra, at 9. The judgment of the D. C. Circuit is therefore vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. On remand, the D. C. Circuit may assess the sufficiency of Count Three of Fischer’s indictment in light of our interpretation of Section 1512(c)(2),” the opinion reads.

The Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit, which had previously adopted a broader interpretation of the law to allow charges against Fischer to proceed. The case now returns to the D.C. Circuit, where the court will assess whether the indictment can still stand under this new, narrower interpretation.

The opinion was written by the Chief Justice. Justice Barrett dissented, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. Justice Jackson, a Democrat who joined the majority opinion, also wrote a concurring opinion.

She stresses that despite “the shocking circumstances involved in this case,” the “Court’s task is to determine what conduct is proscribed by the criminal statute that has been invoked as the basis for the obstruction charge at issue here.”

Read the ruling here:



Join the conversation

Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion.

Did we get something wrong? Do we need to add some additional information? Do you want to suggest a relevant news article? If so, we invite you to contact us to provide that helpful information. Thank you!

Aaron Mostofsky →