Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-5572_l6hn.pdf
Page Number: 29.0

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

1 

BARRETT, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 23–5572 
_________________ 

JOSEPH W. FISCHER, PETITIONER v. 
UNITED STATES 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 

[June 28, 2024] 

JUSTICE BARRETT, with whom JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR and 

JUSTICE KAGAN join, dissenting. 

Joseph  Fischer  allegedly  joined  a  mob  of  rioters  that 
breached the Capitol on January 6, 2021.  At the time, Con-
gress was meeting in a joint session to certify the Electoral 
College  results.    The  riot  forced  Congress  to  suspend  the
proceeding, delaying it for several hours.

The Court does not dispute that Congress’s joint session 
qualifies as an “official proceeding”; that rioters delayed the 
proceeding;  or  even  that  Fischer’s  alleged  conduct  (which
includes trespassing and a physical confrontation with law 
enforcement) was part of a successful effort to forcibly halt
the certification of the election results.  Given these prem-
ises, the case that Fischer can be tried for “obstructing, in-
fluencing,  or  impeding  an  official  proceeding”  seems  open
and shut.  So why does the Court hold otherwise? 

Because  it  simply  cannot  believe  that  Congress  meant
what it said.  Section 1512(c)(2) is a very broad provision,
and admittedly, events like January 6th were not its target.
(Who could blame Congress for that failure of imagination?)
But  statutes  often  go  further  than  the  problem  that  in-
spired  them,  and  under  the  rules  of  statutory  interpreta-
tion, we stick to the text anyway.  The Court, abandoning 
that  approach,  does  textual  backflips  to  find  some  way—