The three January 6 defendants challenging their convictions under the broad application of The Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002’s “obstruction of an official proceeding” provision have been granted early release pending their appeal. In June, the United States Supreme Court is set to decide whether President Joe Biden’s Department of Justice overreached when broadly applying the 2002 financial regulatory law’s enhanced felonies to rioters at the U.S. Capitol.
Established in the wake of the Enron scandal, Sarbanes-Oxley ostensibly addresses crimes committed by individuals in the accounting and financial industries. The “obstruction of an official proceeding” provision was meant to apply to actions taken to cover up financial crimes — such as document destruction — in the course of a federal investigation. However, the vague language of the provision has allowed Biden’s DOJ to use it as a tool in prosecuting the January 6 defendants.
The Biden government’s use of Sarbanes-Oxley in the Capitol riot cases has thus far been upheld by 14 out of 15 federal trial judges overseeing the prosecutions. However, Judge Carl Nichols, who was appointed to the bench by former President Donald Trump, has challenged the law’s application. Judge Nichols’s dissent from his colleagues could potentially sway the high court’s decision on the January 6 prosecutions.
The Supreme Court ruling could have a far-reaching effect beyond the three defendants who requested the appeal. More than 100 of the January 6 prosecutions are at least partially reliant on provisions in Sarbanes-Oxley, and any ruling by the high court narrowing the law’s scope could see most of these defendants released early. Additionally, DOJ special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of former President Donald Trump over his alleged role in the January 6 riots is – in part – built off of the 2002 financial crime law’s “obstruction of an official proceeding” provision.
