## Facts

- On January 6, 2021, Congress convened in a joint session to certify the 2020 presidential election results.
- Thousands of supporters of the losing candidate, Donald Trump, came to the U.S. Capitol, and many entered the building during the proceedings.
- The breach forced members of Congress to halt the certification process and leave the chambers for safety, delaying completion of the count.
- Joseph W. Fischer participated in the events at the Capitol and was later indicted in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- Among other counts, Fischer was charged with obstructing an official proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), a provision added by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
- Fischer moved to dismiss the § 1512(c)(2) count, arguing that it applies only when the charged conduct impairs (or attempts to impair) the availability or integrity of evidence for use in an official proceeding.
- The district court agreed with Fischer’s reading and dismissed the § 1512(c)(2) charge.
- A divided panel of the D.C. Circuit reversed, holding that § 1512(c)(2) reaches a wider range of obstructive conduct directed at an official proceeding, even if it is not aimed at evidence.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the meaning and reach of § 1512(c)(2).

## Issues

1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) criminalizes any corrupt act that obstructs, influences, or impedes an official proceeding, or whether it is limited to conduct tied to impairing the availability or integrity of records, documents, objects, or other things used in the proceeding.
2. How the word “otherwise” in § 1512(c)(2) affects the relationship between subsection (c)(2) and the evidence-focused conduct described in subsection (c)(1).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held, 6–3, that to prove a violation of § 1512(c)(2), the government must show that the defendant impaired (or attempted to impair) the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in the proceeding.
- The Court rejected the government’s reading that treated § 1512(c)(2) as a broad, stand-alone obstruction offense covering corrupt interference with an official proceeding generally.
- The Court vacated the D.C. Circuit’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s interpretation.
- Chief Justice Roberts wrote the Court’s opinion, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Jackson.
- Justice Jackson filed a concurring opinion.
- Justice Barrett dissented, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan.

## Legal Principles

- When a statute uses a general phrase following a specific description and links them with “otherwise,” the general phrase is commonly read in relation to the specific one, reaching conduct similar in type to what was listed first.
- Section 1512(c) must be read as a unit: subsection (c)(1) addresses evidence impairment (altering, destroying, mutilating, or concealing records, documents, or other objects), and subsection (c)(2) covers other ways of causing comparable impairment to items used in an official proceeding.
- Statutory context matters. Because § 1512 as a whole targets interference with evidence and witnesses, subsection (c)(2) is not read to create a sweeping obstruction offense inside an evidence-tampering statute.
- Courts should avoid interpretations that turn a targeted criminal provision into an all-purpose obstruction statute that duplicates many other federal crimes.
- Under § 1512(c)(2), it is not enough to show that a defendant disrupted an official proceeding; the government must connect the charged obstruction to the impairment (or attempted impairment) of records, documents, objects, or other things used in that proceeding.

## Conclusion

In Fischer, the Supreme Court read 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) narrowly, requiring proof that the defendant’s conduct impaired (or attempted to impair) the availability or integrity of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding. The Court vacated the D.C. Circuit’s broader interpretation and remanded for further proceedings under the corrected reading.


Fischer v. United States, 603 U.S. 480, 144 S. Ct. 2176 (2024)