Barrett Blasts Court's Absurd January 6 Ruling

Amy Coney Barrett Rips Supreme Court's "Absurd" January 6 Ruling

Barrett: Court's Narrowing of Obstruction Charges "Absurd"

• Barrett strongly dissented against the court's 6-3 ruling that the Justice Department overstepped in charging hundreds of January 6 rioters with obstruction.
• Barrett argued that the court's interpretation of the law was overly narrow and would hinder future obstruction prosecutions, including potential charges against former President Trump.
• She criticized the court for "abandoning" the traditional approach to statutory interpretation and "doing textual backflips" to limit the scope of the obstruction statute.

Barrett Questions Court's Skepticism of Congress's Intent

• Barrett questioned why the court doubted Congress's intent in passing the obstruction statute, given the clear language of the law.
• She noted that the statute was "a very broad provision" that was intended to cover a wide range of conduct, including the actions of the January 6 rioters.
• Barrett argued that the court should not limit the reach of the statute simply because Congress could not have foreseen the specific events of January 6.

Barrett's Dissent Signals Skepticism of Trump's Immunity Argument

• Barrett's strong words against the court's obstruction ruling suggest that she is unlikely to support former President Trump's argument for immunity from prosecution.
• Trump's lawyers have argued that he cannot be charged with obstruction because his actions on January 6 were protected by executive privilege.
• The high court's decision on Trump's immunity argument is expected to be released on Monday, and Barrett's dissent in the Fischer case signals that she may be leaning toward rejecting Trump's claim.