Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-5572_l6hn.pdf
Page Number: 39

Cite as:  603 U. S. ____ (2024) 

11 

BARRETT, J., dissenting 

(c)(2) is limited by the scope of (c)(1).”  Ante, at 10.  As the 
Court sees it, interpreting (c)(2) according to its plain text 
would  render  other  obstruction  provisions,  within  §1512 
and throughout Chapter 73, superfluous.  Ante, at 10–12. 
The Court exaggerates.  Subsection (c)(2) applies only to
conduct that obstructs an “official proceeding.”  The Court 
highlights  several  provisions  that  cover  obstruction  of  in-
vestigations.  See, e.g., 18 U. S. C. §§1510(a), 1511(a), 1516, 
1517, 1518, 1519.  The circuits have held that criminal in-
vestigations  do  not  qualify  as  “official  proceedings.”    See, 
e.g., United States v. Ermoian, 752 F. 3d 1165, 1172 (CA9 
2013);  United  States  v.  Ramos,  537  F. 3d  439,  463  (CA5 
2008).  Likewise, not every provision in §1512 relates to an 
official  proceeding;  instead,  several  target  the  obstruction
of communications to judges and law enforcement about the 
commission of federal offenses.  18 U. S. C. §§1512(a)(1)(C), 
(a)(2)(C), (b)(3), (d)(1)(2).

The  Court  responds  by  stressing  that  for  purposes  of 
§1512, “an official proceeding need not be pending or about 
to be instituted.”  §1512(f )(1); ante, at 13.  Because obstruc-
tion of investigations or communications could end up ob-
structing  the  initiation  of  a  future  official  proceeding,  the 
Court reasons that (c)(2) may still swallow those other pro-
visions.  But we have previously construed federal obstruc-
tion offenses similar to §1512(c) to require a tighter link be-
tween the obstructive conduct and the relevant proceeding.
Under  the  “nexus”  requirement,  the  defendant’s  conduct
must have a “relationship in time, causation, or logic” with
the proceeding.  Aguilar, 515 U. S., at 599 (adopting nexus
requirement for §1503’s omnibus clause).  And the defend-
ant must act in “contemplation” of a “particular official pro-
ceeding.”  Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U. S. 
696,  708 
for 
§1512(b)(2)).  The  circuits  have  unanimously  applied  this
requirement to §1512(c).  See United States v. Young, 916 
F. 3d 368, 386 (CA4 2019) (collecting cases).  This element 

(adopting  nexus  requirement 

(2005)