Controversial ‘J6 obstruction charge’ against Trump will be heard by Supreme Court on April 16. This delay helps Trump. Therefore, Jack Smith DC trial can’t begin until after Scotus rules, in late June.

Sharing is Caring!

The 2023-24 term at the Supreme Court will close out regularly scheduled oral arguments with three high-profile disputes over the interpretation of the federal criminal law that is at the center of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of former President Donald Trump, the constitutionality of an Oregon city’s law regulating camping on public property, and an Idaho law that criminalizes abortion. The court on Friday released its calendar for its April 2024 argument session, which will feature nine hours of arguments over six days, beginning on April 15 and concluding on April 24.

The justices will hear arguments on April 16 in Fischer v. United States, the case of a man who says he was only briefly inside the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 but was charged with (among other things) obstruction of a congressional proceeding – one of the same charges brought by Smith against Trump last year.

See also  Israel Conducts Airstrikes Against Iran . . . What Happened in Iran and What Will Happen Next? [VIDEO]

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols dismissed the obstruction charge against Joseph Fischer, reasoning that the law, which was enacted in the wake of the Enron collapse, was only intended to apply to evidence tampering that obstructs an official proceeding. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reinstated the charge against Fischer, whose petition for Supreme Court review was granted earlier this year.

The justices will hear arguments on April 22 in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, a case challenging the constitutionality of the city’s enforcement of its ban on public camping against homeless people who do not have access to shelter elsewhere. After two lower courts blocked the city from enforcing the ban, the Grants Pass asked the Supreme Court to intervene. It argues that rulings by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit have created a “judicial roadblock preventing a comprehensive response to the growth of public encampments in the West.” But the challengers, three individuals who are involuntarily homeless, counter that the rulings simply follow the Supreme Court’s decision holding that the Eighth Amendment bars the city from punishing people for their involuntary status – here, being homeless.

READ MORE:

See also  Republican suspends campaign after Trump backs her opponent.

www.scotusblog.com/2024/02/court-releases-april-argument-calendar-2/

 

h/t CFP

Views: 52

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.