The U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday heard arguments that the federal government applied the charge of obstruction of an official proceeding too broadly.
The lawyers for a former Pennsylvania police officer involved in the riots argue the 2002 statute used to charge individuals with felony obstruction was aimed at addressing specific instances of tampering with evidence.
Their decision could have a ripple effect for hundreds of people convicted of federal obstruction charges, including some Montanans.
Attorney Palmer Hoovestal previously represented Jerod and Joshua Hughes of East Helena, who have since been sentenced for their involvement in the January 6 insurrection.
“If [the Supreme Court] ruled that it did not cover that conduct, then yeah, there would be I think hundreds of … petitions filed,” he said. “I know I certainly would do that.”
The U.S. government disagrees with the narrower interpretation of the law and calls it a catch all that extends to acts where someone intends to obstruct an official proceeding.
This is the latest attempt at challenging the count of obstruction, which the U.S. government used to sentence several Montanans and many others in the wake of the riots. Other state residents to receive the charge include Henry Muntzer and Isaac Sturgeon, both of Dillon.
As of Wednesday afternoon, the Supreme Court was still deliberating.
