Court to decide whether to accept appeals in two key cases that could impact thousands of other Jan. 6 cases.
The U.S. Supreme Court has set a conference for Dec. 1 on whether to accept two key Jan. 6 case appeals—one involving a federal agent who carried his firearm at the U.S. Capitol and the other on the Department of Justice’s controversial use of evidence-tampering law to prosecute Jan. 6 defendants for felony obstruction of Congress.
If either or both of the petitions are accepted, it will be the first time a Jan. 6-related case is reviewed by the Supreme Court.
On Nov. 14, the court listed both cases as “distributed for conference” on Dec. 1.
Defense attorney Marina Medvin, who is involved in both cases, said it should be clear by Dec. 4 if the court will issue orders, accept or reject the petitions for review, or hold the cases over for another conference.
The first case—Edward Jacob Lang, Petitioner v. United States—could impact hundreds of defendants accused of the most frequently charged Jan. 6 felony. Corruptly obstructing an official proceeding, which carries a potential 20-year prison term, has been charged in 317 cases, according to the latest DOJ tally.
Dozens of Jan. 6 defendants have already been convicted under the law, which has never been used in such a way since it was implemented in 2002 as a means to curb corporate financial fraud.
Attorneys for Mr. Lang and three other Jan. 6 defendants who filed an amici curiae brief in the case say the DOJ’s weaponization of the statute represents dangerous prosecutorial overreach.
“If the Biden DOJ’s adventurism is allowed to stand, it will permanently change the ability of the government to suppress the rights of American citizens,” legal researcher Jonathon Moseley told The Epoch Times in October.
“Every American will be at the whim of any prosecutor to terrorize them.”
The DOJ said the High Court should not intervene, allowing the prosecutions to proceed.
“At a minimum, the government should be permitted to present its case to a jury and prove that petitioners obstructed a proceeding by [in part] preventing the relevant decision-makers from viewing the evidence at the time and place specified for that purpose,” reads the DOJ’s opposition document.
