Jack Smith Uses Neil Gorsuch's Ruling to Make Case Against Trump

U.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith has referenced a nearly 15-year-old decision by Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch in his latest filing against former President Donald Trump related to the January 6 case. Smith is pushing back against a recent Supreme Court ruling from June that limits the Department of Justice’s ability to charge January 6 defendants with obstruction. Trump has argued that, based on this ruling, his obstruction charges should be overturned, aligning him with over 300 other January 6 defendants who may see similar outcomes due to the Fischer case.

In a filing submitted Wednesday, Smith cited Gorsuch’s 2010 ruling from the United States v. Pope case. In that case, Mark Pope challenged the constitutionality of firearm possession charges following a domestic violence conviction. Gorsuch, then a 10th Circuit judge, affirmed that the case should be resolved at trial, not pretrial, emphasizing that factual disputes—such as Pope’s claim that he needed the firearm for self-defense—must be decided by a jury.

Smith is applying this reasoning to Trump’s case, arguing that Trump’s "alternative narrative" defense should not be considered pretrial by Judge Tanya Chutkan, but rather decided during the trial itself. Smith wrote, "In any event, facts developed at trial will conclusively demonstrate that the defendant's alternative narrative is inaccurate."

The June ruling in Fischer v. United States involved a 6-3 decision in favor of Joseph Fischer, a former Pennsylvania police officer involved in the Capitol riot. Fischer successfully argued that the obstruction law applied to him should only target those tampering with evidence in official proceedings, such as destroying documents. However, Smith’s filing also pointed out that the court left room for exceptions, which could allow obstruction charges to remain in some cases.

Supreme Court Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor both acknowledged circumstances where obstruction charges could apply, including the creation of false evidence. Smith emphasized that Trump's superseding indictment includes allegations involving the creation of false evidence.

Some January 6 defendants have seen obstruction charges dropped following the Fischer ruling, but not all. In the case of Oath Keepers member Jon Ryan Schaffer, prosecutors adapted his plea agreement to meet the court’s criteria for obstruction, and he is now set for sentencing on October 25.

Trump argues that since he did not tamper with evidence, his obstruction charge should be dismissed. If it is upheld and he is convicted, Trump could face up to 20 additional years in prison. His spokesman, Steven Cheung, called the case a politically motivated effort to interfere with the 2024 election, dismissing it as part of a broader "Unconstitutional Witch Hunt" driven by Democrats.