WASHINGTON (June 28, 2024) – The Supreme Court handed down its decision on an obstruction charge that had been used for hundreds of January 6th rioters, ruling that federal prosecutors improperly charged these defendants with obstruction. More than 350 rioters were charged with obstructing or impeding an official proceeding, including former President Donald Trump.
Faculty experts at the George Washington University are available to offer insight, analysis and commentary on what this decision means. If you would like to speak with an expert, please contact GW Media Relations Specialists Shannon Mitchell at [email protected] and Cate Douglass at [email protected].
Paul Schiff Berman is the Walter S. Cox Professor of Law at the George Washington University Law School. Berman is one of the world’s foremost theorists on the interactions among legal systems. Professor Berman is an expert on constitution and administrative law. Berman has commented on Presidential Immunity and Democracy and can be watched discussing the 14th amendment and presidential immunity which can be watched here.
As this case relates to hundreds of rioters, and the current Republican front runner candidate for president, Berman has said “There's no reason that lower court proceedings couldn't continue in the meantime. And if the court ultimately rules that Trump is immune, the proceedings could be discontinued at that time. Which means that a trial is unlikely to begin until end of summer at the earliest.”
Jon Lewis, a research fellow at the GW Program on Extremism, studies domestic violent extremism and homegrown violent extremism, with a specialization in the evolution of white supremacist and anti-government movements in the United States and federal responses to the threat. Lewis is the co-author of two major Program reports on the events of January 6th, as well as numerous long form publications on the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers and their role in the events of January 6th. In addition, Lewis manages the Program's Capitol Hill Siege database, which is a public tracker for all federal cases stemming from J6 participation.
Ahead of SCOTUS’ decision today, Lewis had said the implications of this case was far less about what this ruling could mean for individual cases, but rather what message this ruling sends. He said, “It tells the average American once again that this is permissible, that the laws that we currently have maybe don’t adequately cover the real nature of terrorism and violent extremism at this point in time.”
-GW-