January 6: Supreme Court rules in favor of rioter

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of a Jan. 6 rioter who challenged a law used in his charges. The decision could upend cases involving more than 300 people charged or convicted of obstruction of justice in connection with the attack on the Capitol. Donald Trump is part of that group.

according to'opinion In a majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, the law applies only in cases where a defendant’s actions undermined the integrity of physical evidence such as an email or business document. Lower courts will now have to use this strict standard, leading to the dismissal of charges against many defendants. Those convicted could have their sentences reduced or overturned.

Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett broke with two of the court’s progressive justices, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. Surprisingly, Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson joined the conservative camp on this case.

The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by Joseph Fisher, a former police officer who is charged with six other counts. According to special prosecutor Jack Smith, the court’s decision may have no consequences for Trump, who faces four counts related to the alleged post-election conspiracy in Washington.

The Supreme Court's conservative majority on Friday also buried a doctrine dating back to 1984 called “Chevron deference.” In doing so, he gives a long-awaited victory to right-wingers who have cherished for decades the dream of dismantling the administrative state. This principle takes its name from a 1984 ruling Chevron USA vs. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. His ouster would affect not only the authority of the EPA, but the authority of all federal government agencies that seek to protect commerce or the health or safety of Americans, among other things.

By a 6-2 vote (Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson recused herself from the case), the nation’s highest court broke the precedent established in Chevron that part of a law Congress wrote to empower a regulatory agency is part of the law. The agency’s interpretation is vague but reasonable, and justices must defer to the agency.

Written by Judge Roberts,opinion It can affect countless legal challenges to government regulations.

(Reuters photo)