On Friday morning, June 28, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, 6-3, that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) overreached when it brought federal charges against hundreds of Donald Trump supporters who attacked the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6, 2021.
However, the justices also said, in their decision, that the rioters can be charged if federal prosecutors can show that they were not just attacking the Capitol, but instead, trying to physically prevent the counting of electoral votes.
CNN noted that the ruling "means that special counsel Jack Smith is likely to continue to pursue the same charge against former President Donald Trump."
READ MORE: Barrett accuses SCOTUS of 'textual backflips' in obstruction case: 'Win for Jan. 6 defendants'
U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, in an official statement, said of the ruling, "The vast majority of the more than 1400 defendants charged for their illegal actions on January 6 will not be affected by this decision. There are no cases in which the Department charged a January 6 defendant only with the offense at issue in Fischer. For the cases affected by today's decision, the Department will take appropriate steps to comply with the Court’s ruling."
The ruling is receiving an abundance of reactions on X, formerly Twitter.
HuffPost noted that the decision "has made it harder for the government to charge participants in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection with obstructing an official proceeding. The decision casts uncertainty over hundreds of charges brought against insurrectionists."
Brett Edkins of Stand Up America was vehemently critical of the decision, tweeting, "The Supreme Court just sided with January 6 insurrectionists, endangering hundreds of criminal prosecutions and potentially releasing traitors and violent rioters from prison early."
The group Courage for America slammed the decision as well on X and posted, "SCOTUS rules in favor of insurrectionists in January 6th case. The ruling undermines the DOJ's ability to hold J6 insurrectionists fully accountable for attacking the U.S. Capitol."
Legal expert Steve Vladeck noted that with the ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts has narrowed "the scope of the federal obstruction statute used in many of the January 6 prosecutions."
Vladeck stressed, however, "This ruling should *not* affect the charges against former President Trump, which meet even the narrower reading of the statute adopted by the majority. But for other January 6 defendants, it opens the door to possible re-sentencings or re-trials."
MeidasTouch pointed out that the High Court's decision, "narrows the scope of the obstruction statute at the heart of many cases against January 6 insurrectionists."
The three dissenters, MeidasTouch observed, included Barack Obama appointees Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan along with Trump appointee Amy Coney Barrett —while Joe Biden appointee Ketanji Brown Jackson "joined" five "conservatives in (the) majority."
READ MORE:The Dems need to get serious about defeating Trumpty Dumpty
