Assault on the Capitol | Supreme Court limits obstruction charges against rioters

(Washington) The US Supreme Court on Friday limited the scope of a law used against supporters of former President Donald Trump who participated in the assault on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, by overturning one count charges against one of them.

The decision could indirectly impact federal charges against Trump for unlawfully attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election won by Joe Biden, since that charge is among the charges against him.

But this procedure is also suspended pending the Supreme Court’s decision – in principle on Monday – on the criminal immunity he claims as a former president.

In this case, the debate concerned the application to the assault on the Capitol, that is to say the attempt to disrupt the certification by Congress of the results of the presidential vote, of the charge of obstruction of an official procedure.

The Court, by a majority of six votes to three — five conservatives and one progressive against one conservative and two progressives — considers that this qualification cannot apply to Joseph Fischer, a former police officer, for his actions on January 6, 2021 .

To prove a violation of the statute used in this case, the prosecution must “establish that the defendant compromised the availability or integrity of records, documents, or objects intended for use in an official proceeding,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.

Conversely, in her opinion of disagreement, conservative judge Amy Coney Barrett, joined by two progressive colleagues, criticizes the majority for engaging in “semantic contortions” to give the law a more restrictive interpretation than that intended, according to her, by the Congress.

Attorney General Merrick Garland deplored in a press release this decision, which “limits an important federal law” used by his services to hold accountable the main perpetrators of January 6, 2021, “unprecedented attack against our institutional system”.

But it will have “only a small number of consequences,” the department said, adding that of the more than 1,400 people charged in connection with the Capitol assault, fewer than 18 percent have been prosecuted or convicted on that charge.

Of those who were, around fifty were convicted on this charge alone and only 27 are currently serving a prison sentence, according to the same source.

Regulatory powers of federal agencies reduced

The United States Supreme Court with a conservative majority on Friday reduced the freedom of action of federal agencies, in the crosshairs of ultraliberal circles crusading against “bureaucracy”, by going back on 40 years of jurisprudence.

This case law, known as the “Chevron doctrine”, gave the last word to government agencies in their field of competence, for example in matters of the environment, social protection or consumers. It required federal courts to follow the “reasonable” interpretation of these agencies in cases of ambiguity or silence in the law.

“Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency acted within its statutory authority and cannot defer to that agency’s interpretation of the law simply because it is ambiguous,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote on behalf of the six-conservative majority against the three progressives.

“Chevron is canceled,” he continues.

“Judicial hubris”

The Chevron case law “has become a pillar of modern government, supporting regulatory efforts of all kinds — to name a few, on clean air and water, safe food and medicine, and honest financial markets,” liberal Justice Elena Kagan objected in her dissent.

She regrets that with this ruling “a decision of judicial hubris supplants a decision of judicial humility”, since it will now be up to the courts to rule on a myriad of subjects for which, unlike federal agencies, they do not have the power to do so. no particular expertise.

“Congress knows that it does not write — in fact cannot — write perfectly comprehensive laws,” emphasizes Justice Kagan, criticizing the majority for having during this session “decided to limit the powers of the agencies, despite indications from Congress to the contrary.

She was referring in particular to a decision by the Court on Thursday, by the same majority of six conservatives against the three progressives, denying the American financial markets watchdog, the SEC, the power to sanction individuals or companies via its own administrative judges rather than going through ordinary civil justice.

“Burdensome regulations”

Critics of the Chevron case argued that statutory interpretation is the responsibility of the judiciary, not federal agencies, which are part of the executive branch.

The three main Republican leaders in the House of Representatives, including its President, Mike Johnson, welcomed in a joint statement a decision which “represents the beginning of the end of bureaucracy”, attributing to jurisprudence Chevron “many burdensome regulations that stifle progress and encroach on freedoms.”

Senate Democratic Majority Leader Chuck Schumer lamented that the conservative-majority Supreme Court “once again sided with powerful special interests and giant corporations against the middle class and American families.”

Several environmental NGOs have also denounced the decision, such as Evergreen Action.

“Dismantling the Chevron Doctrine gives all judges appointed under Trump the power to override agency experts’ interpretation of the law and substitute their ideological bias,” the association said in a statement.

“A reversal of the Chevron precedent would be an unjustified shock to the legal system,” argued Elizabeth Prelogar, the legal adviser to the administration of Democratic President Joe Biden, during the debates in January, stressing the risks of instability that it would cause. She predicted, in this hypothesis, a legal cacophony, with “different rules in different parts of the country.”

But most conservative justices appeared resistant to these arguments.

Paradoxically, when adopted in 1984, this decision represented a success for the administration of Republican President Ronald Reagan, who accused progressive judges of burying businesses under exorbitant regulations.

Measures banning homeless encampments approved

The United States Supreme Court ruled in favor on Friday of an Oregon municipality that had implemented measures against homeless encampments, finding that they did not violate the Constitution, opening the possibility of sanctions the homeless who sleep outside.

This decision could have major consequences for the hundreds of thousands of homeless people in the country.

The southern Oregon town of Grants Pass had taken the case to the highest U.S. court after an appeals court in 2022 overturned two 2013 orders that banned camping in public places and in vehicles.

By camping, she meant the principle of having, in a public space, objects used for sleeping, such as a pillow or a blanket.

The federal appeals court considered that these measures fell within the scope of the Eighth Amendment to the American Constitution, which prohibits any “cruel and unusual punishment”.

The judges considered that this text applied because the number of homeless people in Grants Pass exceeded the number of beds available in reception structures, depriving homeless people of an alternative to a stay on the streets.

Six of the Supreme Court’s nine justices, all appointed by Republican presidents, have rejected this argument, in part because Grants Pass’s sanctions for violations “cannot be characterized as cruel or unusual.”

They provide for a fine in the event of a first offense, then a ban on camping in a public park in the event of a repeat offense. If the ban is not respected, the individual then risks a larger fine and up to 30 days of imprisonment.

Justice Neil Gorsuch argued that the issue of homelessness was “complex” and that local authorities were not seeking to address it solely through enforcement.

“A handful of federal judges cannot substitute for the judgment of the American people as to the best way to address an urgent social issue like that of homelessness,” the magistrate wrote on behalf of the majority.

The Supreme Court’s decision also calls into question an older ruling, dating back to 2018, by which a federal appeals court had prohibited the city of Boise (Idaho) from penalizing camping in a public place.

In 2019, the Supreme Court refused to consider an appeal by the municipality against the appeal decision.

The Boise ruling had a significant impact on how municipalities in the western United States, which has the largest homeless population in the country, deal with homelessness. Most have since refrained from criminalizing rough sleeping.