A majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices appeared leery Tuesday of allowing the Department of Justice to prosecute Jan. 6 rioters under a federal obstruction statute, a stance that could derail more than 300 court cases and weaken the government’s election interference case against Donald Trump, per reporting from our D.C. bureau.

Trump in court for an unrelated case, of which there are many. (Photo by Jabin Botsford-Pool/Getty Images)

The case centers on a law known as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which makes it a crime to destroy or alter evidence or “otherwise” obstruct or impede an official proceeding. The statute, enacted in the wake of the Enron scandal, was designed to deter accounting fraud, and while it’s written broadly, prosecutors had never used it in a case that did not involve direct evidence tampering. That changed after Jan. 6, when the Department of Justice invoked the law to charge hundreds of people in connection to the Capitol riot — including Trump, who faces two related charges in a federal election interference case.

That group also includes Joseph Fischer, a former police officer and Jan. 6 participant who appealed a charge accusing him of obstructing an official proceeding, arguing that prosecutors had improperly interpreted a law that applies only to defendants who tamper with evidence. Attorneys for the government defended that interpretation in oral arguments Tuesday, claiming that the language of the law — particularly the word “otherwise” — functions as a “classic catchall” that can be applied to other types of obstruction.

“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,” Solicitor General Elizabeth Prolegar said in her opening remarks. “They obstructed Congress’ work in that official proceeding.”

Joseph Fischer having a nice time with his friends in D.C. (Photo from court documents)

The court’s conservative majority seemed skeptical of that broad application, which they said could allow the government to target peaceful protesters, hecklers or political demonstrations.

“Would a sit-in that disrupts a trial or access to a federal courthouse qualify?” asked Justice Neil Gorsuch. “Would a heckler in today’s audience qualify? Or at the State of the Union address? Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify for 20 years in federal prison?”

The three liberal justices seemed more amenable to the government’s case, noting that congressional lawmakers could have easily limited the scope of law to evidence tampering by excluding any reference to “official proceedings.” But “it doesn’t do that,” Justice Elena Kagan noted.

“This is their backstop provision,” she said.

The court’s decision, expected this summer (or whenever they feel like it), could potentially erase convictions and sentences for Jan. 6 participants who have already gone to trial and unravel pending charges for hundreds of others. But it may not affect the election interference case against Trump, who was charged in connection with an alleged (and ludicrous) plan to overturn his 2020 loss by submitting fraudulent electoral certificates to Congress — a decidedly direct form of document tampering that is clearly germane to the law, according to special counsel Jack Smith.

The greatest moment of Thomas Massie’s life? (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

Drama unfolded concurrently over at the Capitol Tuesday as U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) joined a campaign to unseat House Speaker Mike Johnson, adding an extra dash of spicy dysfunction to a chamber that was not particularly in need of additional spice or dysfunction, per the D.C. bureau.

Massie, who called on Johnson to resign during a closed-door meeting Tuesday, said there are enough votes to oust him, though only two lawmakers have signed on publicly. (The other is Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, because of course it is.) In a sane world, a two-person roster does not constitute a “campaign,” but this is the U.S. House of Representatives, where any one lawmaker can initiate a vote to boot the speaker at any time for any reason. And one of them will initiate that vote, according to Massie.

“The motion will get called,” Massie said. “And then he’s going to lose more votes than Kevin McCarthy. And I have told him this in private, like weeks ago.”

Far-right lawmakers have grumbled about Johnson for most of his six-month tenure, forcing him to delay a floor vote on a Senate-approved package of military aid for Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan that the MAGA caucus has refused to consider without concessions on border security, a ridiculous demand from the same crowd that tanked a bipartisan border security bill so Trump could more convincingly campaign on immigration. There is no pleasing these people, which is what happens when the people who run the government have literally no interest in governing, but Johnson is still trying anyway, most recently by splitting the foreign aid package into four separate bills — one each for Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan, with a fourth to “counter our adversaries and strengthen our national security.”

                       If one bill isn’t a crowd-pleaser, make it four! (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

Spoiler: No one was pleased.

“I am firmly against the plan as it stands right now,” Greene told reporters Monday. But she hadn’t “yet” decided whether to force a vote on Johnson himself, she added.

But that vote is the only way he’s leaving, at least for now.

“I am not resigning,” Johnson said Thursday. “And it is, in my view, an absurd notion that someone would bring a vacate motion. We’re simply here trying to do our job.”

Finally we arrive at the real politics news of the day: Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders likely violated state law by shelling out $19,000 for a lectern, according to a report from the nonpartisan Arkansas Legislative Audit. Examples of “potential noncompliance” include paying for the lectern before it was delivered, characterizing it as an operating expense, and failing to properly record the item as government property, per the Arkansas Advocate.

This could be a $19,000 lectern, but it might also not be a $19,000 lectern, and I will never stop being bothered by the fact that you can’t tell the difference. (Photo by Karen E. Segrave/Arkansas Advocate)

Sadly, that list does not include “paying nineteen thousand dollars for a lectern that is just made of wood and has no superpowers to speak of, not even a Diet Coke button” — but it does note the office’s failure “to create a business justification statement for the purchase,” which is maybe sort of the government version of the same thing.

Anyway, I digress. The (boring, non-soda-summoning) lectern has been causing problems for Sanders since last fall, when a reporter noticed that the state GOP had reimbursed her office for the purchase. Everyone had many questions, including why a lectern would cost $19,000 and why you would buy it on a state-issued credit card and have the GOP reimburse you instead of just having the GOP buy its own lectern, all of which Sanders dismissed as “manufactured controversy” that would be cleared up by the audit, a process she “welcomed” but then refused to participate in, according to the report.

The audit made a number of recommendations, advising that the governor’s office pay for things only after they are delivered, “retain all original documentation” and follow state law when disposing of property. Lawmakers could amend state law to prevent similar situations by restricting the governor’s use of state funds, the report added.

The state GOP could not be reached for comment. A spokesperson for Sanders said Monday the report proved what they’d “said all along: We followed the law, and the state was fully reimbursed with private funds for the podium, at no cost to the taxpayers.”