[link removed] [[link removed]] John,
For those of us at CREW who went to the Supreme Court in February for the oral arguments in our 14th Amendment case, Trump v. Anderson , this week’s Supreme Court arguments brought a sense of déjà vu.
On Tuesday, the Court heard arguments in Fischer v. United States to determine whether January 6th insurrectionists can be charged with obstructing an official proceeding. More than 300 insurrectionists were charged with violating that statute, with many already having been found guilty and sentenced.
In February, we went to the Supreme Court to enforce Donald Trump’s disqualification from the ballot. In March, the Court swiftly ruled to let Trump off the hook on a technicality, saying that states don’t have the power to enforce the disqualification of federal candidates.
Here’s why this feels like February all over again:
*
Accountability
for
Donald
Trump
is
on
the
line.
Trump
is
one
of
the
insurrectionists
who
was
charged
with
obstructing
an
official
proceeding
in
the
federal
election
interference
case.
Trump’s
charges
aren’t
before
the
Court,
but
this
case
may
impact
them.
*
Clarence
Thomas
heard
a
case
about
January
6th,
despite
his
wife’s
involvement.
Thomas
has
a
duty
to
avoid
the
appearance
of
conflicts
of
interest,
and
given
Ginni
Thomas’s
support
for
the
Big
Lie
there’s
a
case
to
be
made
that
he
should
have
recused.
*
Justices
minimized
the
gravity
of
the
insurrection.
For
example,
Clarence
Thomas
asked
whether
there
were
other
examples
of
prosecuting
protesters
for
obstructing
an
official
proceeding,
ignoring
the
fact
that
the
January
6th
insurrection
was
completely
unprecedented.
In yet another parallel to our case in February, if you read the text of the law, it seems to clearly apply. As the solicitor general said [[link removed]] before the Court: “Many crimes occurred [on January 6th], but in plain English, the fundamental wrong committed by many of the rioters, including petitioner, was a deliberate attempt to stop the joint session of Congress from certifying the results of the election. That is, they obstructed Congress’s work in that official proceeding.”
So the question is: does the law mean what it says?
As Vox [[link removed]] noted, “It appears, after Tuesday’s arguments, that a majority of the justices will side with the insurrectionists — though it is far from clear how those justices will justify such an outcome.”
Again, that sounds like Trump v. Anderson . It was clear that the Court was looking for a way to avoid the issue. But deciding exactly how was the problem.
The Court is hearing Trump’s bid for total immunity next week, which will give us more of a sense of what it thinks about laws that should hold insurrectionists accountable.
In both of these cases, the stakes are incredibly high. CREW will continue to do everything in our power to call attention to the ethical and legal issues at play and fight for accountability for January 6th.
If you can, please consider making a donation today to support that work. → [[link removed]]
Thank you,
Adam Rappaport
General Counsel
CREW
DONATE → [[link removed]]
Make sure this email goes to your inbox. Add
[email protected] to your address book.
Email is a key way for us to stay in touch and make sure you get the latest updates from our campaign. But if you would like to unsubscribe, click here [[link removed]] .
Sign up to receive our messages straight to your phone! This is the best and fastest way to support CREW's work. Text 'JOIN' to 40234 to get updates. Txt STOP 2 end, HELP 4 help.
If you'd like to donate to support our efforts, please click here → [[link removed]]
© Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington 2020–2023
CFC 42218
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
PO Box 14596
Washington, DC 20044
United States
