Supreme Court rules in January 6 rioters case impacting Trump's trial

Supreme Court rules in January 6 rioters case impacting Trump's trial

• READ MORE: January 6 case with big implications for Trump election fraud trial

The Supreme Court ruled that there are limits on charging January 6 rioters with obstruction, in a case that will impact former President Trump's 2020 federal election interference case.

The decision could upend hundreds of cases stemming from the January 6 riot, including Donald Trump's election fraud trial.

The court's ruling makes it harder for January 6 defendants to be charged with obstructing an official proceeding.

That is among the four charges facing former President Donald Trump in Special Counsel Jack Smith's federal case.

At least 152 people have been convicted of obstructing an official proceeding, according to the Associated Press, a crime punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

In all, the charge has been brought against more than 300 people, accused of trying to prevent Congress certifying Joe Biden's 2020 election victory.

The case was brought by former Boston police officer Joseph Fischer who was indicted on seven charges following the 6 riot including one count for anyone who 'corruptly ... obstructs, influences and impedes any official proceeding.'

A lower court dismissed the charge after Fischer's lawyers argued he did not try to interfere with any documents or records.

Federal prosecutors appealed and a three-judge panel on the D.C. circuit reinstated the charge.

Trump faces four charges brought by the special counsel: Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; conspiracy to defraud the United States; and conspiracy to deprive citizens of their voting rights.

Trump has pleaded not guilty to these charges, and to dozens more charges stemming from three other criminal prosecutions.

His trial has been pushed off until the Supreme Court rules whether he is immune from prosecution.

The decision comes as Trump is facing criminal charges in three criminal cases and has already been found guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records in New York last month.

He is the first former president to ever be convicted of a crime.

During oral arguments where some wild hypotheticals were addressed, the justices appeared to reject granting presidents absolute immunity, but their line of questioning suggested they could delay Trump's trial as he runs for president for a third time.

Liberal justices fretted that ruling presidents have full immunity would be no different than creating a king who could have power to stage a military coup or assassinate political opponents.

Conservative justices signaled they wanted to provide at least some legal safeguards to protect Trump and future presidents from political prosecution.