Trump's MAJOR Supreme Court VICTORY may set a new precedent for January 6 defendants
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Joseph Fischer, a January 6 Capitol riot participant, challenging his federal obstruction conviction.
The justices ruled 6-3 to overturn a lower court’s decision that had allowed a charge of corruptly obstructing an official proceeding — specifically, the congressional certification of President Biden’s victory.
Like Fischer, there are over 300 defendants charged with “obstruction of an official proceeding.” Now that a new precedent has been set, these defendants may be able to look forward to similar outcomes.
“Long story short, the Court today had a very sound ruling when it comes to statutory interpretation 101 first principles. They said that this is an incorrect reading of the statute and the practical fact is that a lot of the J6ers should have their sentences heavily reduced if not thrown out altogether,” legal expert Josh Hammer tells Sara Gonzales.
Not only does this ruling affect those who were at the Capitol on January 6 — but it also is great news for former President Donald Trump.
“I think two of the four counts against Donald Trump in the Washington, D.C., indictment are now in very, very serious jeopardy. Those will likely get tossed out as well,” Hammer explains.
While the Supreme Court ruled that the case needs to go back to the lower court to be reconsidered, it shouldn’t matter that the lower court is in D.C. itself.
“They’re going to have to apply this standard still,” Hammer says, adding that “they were pretty clear that this is just not an appropriate exercise of statutory interpretation, so I’m relatively confident that this is going to play out pretty well from here.”
While many are pleased with the outcome, there is one Trump-appointed justice who, shockingly, isn’t.
“Amy Coney Barrett did dissent with Sotomayor and Kagan,” Gonzales explains.
“Amy Coney Barrett is rapidly shaping up to be perhaps perhaps Trump’s single biggest disappointment, frankly, on that court,” Hammer says.
Want more from Sara Gonzales?
To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Supreme Court Strikes Blow To Administrative State, Overturns Chevron Doctrine
The high court's decision marks a major victory for conservatives seeking to dismantle the unchecked power of unelected bureaucrats.Supreme Court grants review of landmark case that may strip significant power from federal government
The Supreme Court will hear a case in the next term that could remove a significant amount of power from the federal government.
What is the case about?
On Monday, the court granted review of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.
The case was brought by herring fishermen in New England, challenging the National Marine Fisheries Service's authority to force them to carry a monitor on their vessels who ensures the fishermen comply with federal regulations. Not only do fishermen not have a say in whether monitors are placed on their vessels, but they are forced to pay the monitor's salary.
The industry estimates the regulations reduces their profits by 20%.
What is the significance of the case?
The Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to answer the following question:
Whether the Court should overrule Chevron or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly grantedelsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to theagency.
The case, then, could gut the Chevron Doctrine, established by the landmark Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. in 1984.
"In Chevron, the Supreme Court set forth a legal test as to when the court should defer to the agency’s answer or interpretation, holding that such judicial deference is appropriate where the agency’s answer was not unreasonable, so long as Congress had not spoken directly to the precise issue at question," Cornell Law explains.
In layman's terms, the Chevron Doctrine significantly empowers the federal government because in the absence of explicit statutory language (for which Congress is responsible), the courts defer to the executive branch's "reasonable" statutory interpretation.
Unsurprisingly, those interpretations almost always favor the federal government because the definition of "reasonable" has been stretched beyond reason.
The potential implications of Loper Bright cannot be ignored because the government stands to lose a significant amount of power. But as law professor Jonathan Adler explained, the Supreme Court is not likely to overrule Chevron altogether.
"[I]t is more likely the Court merely takes the opportunity to narrow the doctrine and make clear that statutory silences and ambiguities should not be construed as grants of agency authority," Alder reacted.
Ironically, the case made it to the Supreme Court because the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals applied Chevron deference, ruling 2-1 that the government is justified in its interpretation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Thus, they ruled the monitor program, which hamstrings herring fishermen, is legal.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who served on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals until last June, recused herself from the case.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com
freebeacon.com
thefederalist.com