Jack Smith Uses Neil Gorsuch’s Ruling to Make Case Against Trump

U.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith used a nearly 15-year-old ruling by Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch as part of his latest filing against former President Donald Trump in his January 6 case.
Smith is fighting against a Supreme Court ruling in June which limited the Department of Justice’s ability to charge Jan. 6 defendants with obstruction. Trump argues that he should be included among the 300-plus Jan. 6 defendants whose obstruction charges could be overturned because of the Fischer case ruling.
In a Wednesday court filing, Smith cited Gorsuch’s ruling from the United States v. Pope case in 2010. In that case, Mark Pope, who’d been charged with firearm possession after a domestic violence misdemeanor conviction, argued that the charge was unconstitutional and should be dismissed. Gorsuch, who was a 10th circuit judge at the time, affirmed a lower court’s ruling that the charge had to be settled at trial rather than pretrial and therefore would not be dismissed.
Gorsuch emphasized the need to resolve factual disputes at trial rather than through pretrial motions. Pope’s claim that he had the firearm for self-defense was something that a jury had to decide, according to Gorsuch.
Smith argues the same is true here. Trump’s “alternative narrative” defense merits no consideration by the Judge Tanya Chutkan at this stage and instead needs to be decided at trial.
“In any event, facts developed at trial will conclusively demonstrate that the defendant’s alternative narrative is inaccurate,” Smith wrote in the Wednesday filing.
The Supreme Court’s June ruling in Fischer v. United States saw justices vote 6-3 in favor of former Pennsylvania police office Joseph Fischer. Fischer, who was charged in the Capitol riot, argued the law being used to charge him with obstruction should only apply to evidence tampering, including destruction of records or documents, in an official proceeding.
In its June ruling, the court did allow for caveats which would allow the obstruction charge to stick in other cases and Smith quoted these in Wednesday’s filing, too.
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson ceded that Fischer’s actions could be seen to have involved the impairment or attempted impairment of “the availability or integrity of things used during the January 6 proceeding.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said creating false evidence could also be seen as obstruction.
“The defendant’s supplement ignores entirely that the superseding indictment includes allegations that involve the creation of false evidence,” Smith pointed out.
Some January 6 defendants have had the obstruction charge dropped from their cases in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling. However, Fischer did not lead to all obstruction charges being dropped, with prosecutors finding a way to claim the actions of at least one defendant did amount to targeting official records or documents in a recent case.
Jon Ryan Schaffer, a member of the Oath Keepers, pleaded guilty to obstruction and is now due to be sentenced October 25. Prosecutors had him change the words of his plea deal to satisfy the Supreme Court’s ruling of what constitutes obstruction.
Trump argues that he didn’t tamper with evidence and therefore should have the obstruction charge dropped. If the charge is allowed to stand and he is found guilty, the former president could face an additional 20 years in prison.
Trump spokesman Steven Cheung said in a statement sent to Newsweek that “radical Democrats” were hell-bent on interfering with the 2024 election.
“President Trump is dominating this race and Crazed Liberals throughout the Deep State are freaking out,” Cheung said. “As mandated by the Supreme Court’s historic decision on Presidential Immunity and other vital jurisprudence, this entire case is a sham and a partisan, Unconstitutional Witch Hunt that should be dismissed entirely—as should ALL of the remaining Democrat hoaxes.”
Update 10/16/24, 3:21 p.m. ET: This story was updated with comment from Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung.