Aside from presidential immunity, here are two important Supreme Court cases to keep an eye out for this week

Brett Davis / Flickr

It’s the final week in the Supreme Court term and we’re still awaiting some major decisions, including whether the former president is immune for crimes committed in office under the guise of ‘official acts’. Here are a few of the other opinions to keep an eye out for in the coming days.

Fischer v. United States

Joseph Fischer was a participant at the insurrection on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, and was subsequently charged with obstruction of an official proceeding for the acts he committed on that day. The charge is one that has been used over 300 times relating to January 6 defendants. The former president was also indicted for obstruction of (and attempting to obstruct) an official proceeding for his behavior relating to the riot and attempts to thwart the peaceful transfer of power. 

After a grand jury indicted Fischer on seven counts relating to January 6, he moved to dismiss a number of the counts, including the charge of obstruction of an official proceeding, which falls under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The law was enacted in the wake of the Enron scandal and therefore Fischer argued that it could only apply to tampering with documents, evidence, or witnesses, as opposed to physical obstruction through violence, as alleged in his indictment.

In March of 2022, the District Court in Washington D.C. dismissed that count, agreeing with Fischer that § 1512(c)(2) only applies to people who act “with respect to a document, record, or other object” in attempting to “corruptly obstruct, impede or influence an official proceeding.” The government appealed and in April 2023, the Appeals Court reversed the decision of the lower court, stating that the word “corruptly” in the statute meant that the defendant had to act with corrupt intent and that this applied not only to tampering with documents or evidence, but to the conduct of Mr. Fischer as well. Fischer appealed to the Supreme Court in September of 2023, with the Justices agreeing to hear his case two months later. Oral arguments were held in April of this year.

Should the Supreme Court agree with Fischer, the opinion they issue could have a wide-ranging impact on hundreds of January 6 cases. Arguably, a ruling in Fischer’s favor may not impact Trump’s indictment, as his conduct encompassed things like submitting false slates of electors and could therefore be covered by the language “with respect to a document, record, or other object”. 

Moyle v. United States

Moyle v. United States will determine whether an Idaho law – The Defense of Life Act - conflicts with the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, commonly known as EMTALA. Prior to the Dobbs decision of June 2022, which eliminated the constitutional right to abortion, Idaho enacted a so-called ‘trigger law’, that went into effect as soon as Roe v. Wade was overturned by Dobbs. A month after the Supreme Court issued the Dobbs decision, the federal government issued guidance that required any hospital in receipt of Medicare funds to provide "necessary stabilizing treatment" for any "emergency medical condition”, meaning that such facilities would have to provide abortion care in emergency situations. The government also filed a federal lawsuit in Idaho, arguing that EMTALA pre-empted Idaho’s trigger law, which only permits abortion in certain circumstances. The District Court in Idaho agreed with the Biden administration and a preliminary injunction was issued, partially blocking the enforcement of the Idaho law.

The case eventually made its way to the Ninth Circuit and then up to the Supreme Court, which temporarily permitted the state of Idaho to enforce the Defense of Life Act in January 2024. Oral arguments were held during the same week as the former president’s claim of immunity in April 2024.

During oral argument, Justice Kagan noted that six women had been airlifted out of Idaho owing to the law, starkly warning that “It can’t be the right standard of care to force somebody into a helicopter.” The hearing was also notable for the questioning of Amy Coney Barrett, who seemed skeptical of some of the arguments being asserted by the lawyer for the state of Idaho. As Slate wrote afterwards, “The gender divide on the court has never been so revealing.” It will be particularly interesting to see which way Justice Barrett falls in this matter and whether she writes any of the opinions.

The ritual of spending the latter half of June repeatedly refreshing the opinions page on the Supreme Court website continues and as usual in recent years, all the most-consequential cases have been saved for the end of the term. Sigh.