people don't really read the opinions and one way you know is that the statutory interpretation doesn't necessarily get a single person off the hook for anything. i think it's *wrongly decided* but KBJ correctly points out that nothing should change on remand for most of these defendants.
Breaking news: Federal prosecutors improperly charged hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants with obstruction, the Supreme Court ruled on Friday, upending many cases against rioters who disrupted the certification of the 2020 presidential election.
Supreme Court’s decision on obstruction charge will impact trials of hundreds of Jan. 6 rioters and, potentially, former president Donald Trump.
one thing you learn from reading cases that get remanded is that lower courts usually take the SCOTUS revision and say "OK, cool, but even under the new standard nothing changes."
I took a look and it seems a very lawyer brain move from her, like politically she should have just voted against it, especially if it won't change the result, but she was like no no there is a procedural issue here
I can understand folks being suspicious of this Court but it’s not like “the law was poorly phrased” and/or “prosecutors kinda reached on their interpretation” are crazy possibilities just in general.
They can just retry everyone, can't they? Consider new charges, etc.?