Jack Smith’s Use Of Obstruction Law Limited By Supreme Court ‘Fatally Undermines’ Case, Trump Attorneys Argue

Special counsel Jack Smith’s election interference case falls apart under recent Supreme Court precedent, former President Donald Trump’s attorneys said Thursday.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Fischer v. United States, which scaled back the Biden-Harris Department of Justice’s (DOJ) overbroad use of an obstruction statute designed to target corporate document shredding against Jan. 6 defendants, “fatally undermines” two counts and requires dismissing two others, Trump’s attorneys wrote.

The Fischer decision is another example of the Supreme Court applying “the rule of law to reject lawfare overreach targeting” Trump, his attorneys said, citing two other rulings from the past term rejecting state efforts to remove Trump from the ballot and finding former presidents are immune from prosecution for official acts taken in office.

“Under Fischer, the Office may not use the statute as a catchall provision to criminalize otherwise lawful activities selectively mischaracterized as obstructive by those with opposing political views,” his attorneys told Judge Tanya Chutkan.

Since the ruling, the DOJ has acknowledged the Supreme Court “severely undermined their position” in at least 100 of the 259 Jan. 6 defendants charged or convicted under the obstruction statute, the filing states.

Smith filed