October Term 2023 · Docket 23-5572

Does obstructing evidence require actual impairment of a proceeding?

The dispute centers on whether a defendant must actually impair a proceeding to violate the obstruction statute.

Official caption
Fischer v. United States
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Decided
Sources analyzed through
Post Opinion

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  3. — An official Court opinion was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    General Prelogar stated a violent mob stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021. She argued this disrupted the peaceful transition of power.

    Jeffrey Green stated Congress enacted the statute in 2002. He argued it prohibits impairing evidence integrity or availability.

    Justice Barrett noted a hypothetical official obstructing evidence. She clarified this did not involve altering vote certificates.

    Justice Thomas suggested looking at provision two first. He asked if it could serve as the basis for similarity.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

Fischer challenges his conviction under 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2). The government argues the statute covers attempts to impair evidence. Fischer argues the statute requires actual impairment of a proceeding.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 16, 2024.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

The government wants the Court to uphold the conviction. It argues the statute covers attempts to impair evidence.

Fischer wants the Court to reverse the conviction. He argues the statute requires actual impairment of a proceeding.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The government contends the statute prohibits impairing evidence integrity. It asserts this covers attempts to obstruct proceedings.

Fischer contends the statute requires actual impairment. He argues intent alone does not satisfy the statutory text.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Thomas asked how to determine what two provisions have in common. He questioned whether to look before or after the word otherwise.

Justice Sotomayor noted provision one does not require actual impairment. She stated provision two requires accomplishing the intent to impair.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the scope of federal obstruction laws. It determines whether intent alone constitutes a crime. It affects how prosecutors charge evidence tampering. It clarifies the boundary between attempt and completed obstruction.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Verified official opinions and orders

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON