(Washington) The US Supreme Court on Friday limited the scope of a law used against supporters of ex-President Donald Trump who participated in the assault on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, striking down one count charges against one of them.
This decision could indirectly have consequences on the federal proceedings against Donald Trump for illicit attempts to reverse the results of the 2020 election won by Joe Biden, since this charge is among the proceedings against him.
But this procedure is also suspended while waiting for the Supreme Court to rule – in principle on Monday – on the criminal immunity which he claims as former president.
In this case, the debate concerned the application to the assault on the Capitol, that is to say the attempt to disrupt the certification by Congress of the results of the presidential vote, of the charge of obstruction of an official procedure.
The Court, by a majority of six votes to three — five conservatives and one progressive against one conservative and two progressives — considers that this qualification cannot apply to Joseph Fischer, a former police officer, for his actions on January 6, 2021 .
To prove a violation of the law used in this case, the prosecution must “establish that the defendant compromised the availability or integrity of records, documents, or objects intended for use in an official proceeding,” written in name of the majority the President of the Court, John Roberts.
Conversely, in her opinion of disagreement, conservative judge Amy Coney Barrett, joined by two progressive colleagues, criticizes the majority for engaging in “semantic contortions” to give the law a more restrictive interpretation than that intended, according to her, by the Congress.
Attorney General Merrick Garland deplored in a press release this decision, which “limits an important federal law” used by his services to hold accountable the main perpetrators of January 6, 2021, “unprecedented attack on our institutional system”.
But it will “only have consequences on a small number of cases”, according to the department, specifying that of more than 1,400 people charged for their participation in the assault on the Capitol, less than 18% have been prosecuted or found guilty of this charge.
Of those who were, around fifty were convicted on this charge alone and only 27 are currently serving a prison sentence, according to the same source.
The United States Supreme Court with a conservative majority on Friday reduced the freedom of action of federal agencies, in the crosshairs of ultraliberal circles crusading against “bureaucracy”, by reversing 40 years of jurisprudence.
This case law, known as the “Chevron doctrine”, gave the last word to government agencies in their field of competence, for example in matters of the environment, social protection or consumers. It required federal courts to follow those agencies’ “reasonable” interpretation when the law was ambiguous or silent.
“Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency acted within its statutory authority and cannot defer to that agency’s interpretation of the law simply because it is ambiguous,” wrote the President of the Court, John Roberts, on behalf of the majority of six conservatives against the progressives.
“Chevron is canceled,” he continued.
Chevron jurisprudence “has become a pillar of modern government, supporting regulatory efforts of all kinds – to name a few on clean air and water, food and drug safety, and honesty of financial markets,” objects progressive Justice Elena Kagan in her dissent.
“Congress knows that it does not write — in fact cannot — write perfectly comprehensive laws,” she emphasizes, criticizing the majority for having during this session “decided to limit the powers of agencies, despite indications from Congress to the contrary.”
She was referring in particular to a decision by the Court on Thursday, by the same majority of six conservatives against three progressives, denying the American financial markets watchdog, the SEC, the power to sanction individuals or companies via its own administrative judges rather than going through ordinary civil justice.
Critics of the Chevron case law argued that the interpretation of laws falls to the judiciary and not to federal agencies, which depend on the executive branch.
“A reversal of the Chevron jurisprudence would be an unjustified shock to the legal system,” argued during the debates in January the legal adviser to the administration of Democratic President Joe Biden, Elizabeth Prelogar, highlighting the risks of instability that it would cause .
But most conservative judges appeared resistant to these arguments.
One of them, Brett Kavanaugh, argued that this instability was inherent to democratic institutions.
“The Chevron jurisprudence itself causes shocks to the system when a new administration arrives,” he retorted, referring to the four-year presidential term, renewable once.
These upheavals concern “telecommunications law, financial markets, competition law and environmental law,” Mr. Kavanaugh listed.
Ironically, when it was adopted in 1984, the decision represented a success for the administration of Republican President Ronald Reagan, who accused liberal judges of burying businesses under exorbitant regulations.
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor on Friday of an Oregon municipality which had implemented measures against homeless encampments, finding that they did not violate the Constitution, opening the possibility of sanctions the homeless who sleep outside.
This decision could have major consequences for the hundreds of thousands of homeless people in the country.
The town of Grants Pass, located in southern Oregon, had taken the matter to the highest American court after an appeals court overturned, in 2022, two decrees taken in 2013 which prohibited “camping” in places public and in a vehicle.
By camping, she meant the principle of having, in a public space, objects used for sleeping, such as a pillow or a blanket.
The federal appeals court considered that these measures fell within the scope of the Eighth Amendment to the American Constitution, which prohibits any “cruel and unusual punishment”.
The magistrates considered that this text applied because the number of homeless people in Grants Pass exceeded the number of beds available in reception structures, depriving homeless people of an alternative to staying on the streets.
Six of the Supreme Court’s nine justices, all appointed by Republican presidents, have rejected this argument, in part because Grants Pass’ sanctions for violations “cannot be described as cruel or unusual.”
They provide for a fine in the event of a first offense, then a ban on camping in a public park in the event of a repeat offense. If the ban is violated, the individual risks a larger fine and up to 30 days in prison.
Justice Neil Gorsuch argued that the issue of homelessness was “complex” and that local authorities were not seeking to address it solely through enforcement.
“A handful of federal judges cannot substitute for the judgment of the American people as to how best to address an urgent social issue like homelessness,” the magistrate wrote on behalf of the majority.
The Supreme Court’s decision also calls into question an older ruling, dating back to 2018, by which a federal appeals court had prohibited the city of Boise (Idaho) from penalizing camping in a public place.
In 2019, the Supreme Court refused to consider an appeal by the municipality against the appeal decision.
The Boise case law has had a significant impact on the management of the homeless by municipalities in the western United States, where the homeless population is the largest in the country. Most have since refrained from penalizing sleeping on the street.