Sarbanes-Oxley Act

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was passed in response to the Enron scandal in the early 2000s, after it was exposed that those involved had engaged in massive fraud and shredding documents. It criminalises the destruction of evidence - like records or documents. But it also penalises anyone who "otherwise obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so." How has it been used in response to the 6 January riots? 
Under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the US Department of Justice (DoJ) has brought obstruction charges against those who participated in the storming of the Capitol.  Federal prosecutors argue they did so to impede Congress' certification of the presidential electoral vote count to cement Joe Biden as the winner of the 2020 election. Therefore, the latter portion of the law that deals with obstructing an "official proceeding" would apply, the DoJ says. 
Who is challenging the law's use in this case, and why? The Supreme Court is hearing a challenge to the law's application brought forward by a former Pennsylvania police officer. Joseph Fischer was charged under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act with obstruction of a congressional proceeding on 6 January, as well as assaulting a police officer and disorderly conduct. His lawyers argue that prosecutors overreached with applying the Act, which they say deals explicitly with destroying or tampering with evidence integral to an investigation. 
=== Weblinks === 
* Supreme Court hears 6 Jan case that may hit Trump trial. By Nadine Yousif, BBC News, 16 April 2024
* Supreme Court appears divided on case that could upend felony charges against Jan. 6 rioters. The justices will decide whether prosecutors improperly charged dozens. By Devin Dwyer at abc7chicago, 16. apr. 2024