The Jan. 6 Trump case could move forward even if the court restricts the use of the filibuster.

Advertising

Supported by

News Analysis

The federal indictment against Donald Trump for conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election is based in part on the law the Supreme Court considered Tuesday, but which was left without it.

By Alan Feuer

Although Donald J. Trump was never discussed at Tuesday’s Supreme Court hearing on a federal filibuster law used against many of his supporters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, the former president carried a lot of weight in the process.

In fact, Trump was indicted under the law in connection with an indictment he faces in Washington, accusing him of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election. And the court’s eventual ruling on the filibuster law may be how your case moves forward.

It’s not yet clear exactly how the court will rule, however, at the hearing, the justices warned that federal prosecutors would have arguably interpreted the law too broadly and used it unfairly against many rioters who were in the courtroom on Jan. 6. The use of the law against the Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol does not signify the course of Mr. Trump’s own case. Trump will be particularly upset.

Lawyers representing many of the Jan. 6 defendants wondered about the use of the filibuster law long before Trump was indicted in August. The lawyers argued, among other things, that one of the central provisions of the law, which required the government to provide proof that documents were destroyed or forged, had something to do with the intrusion into the Capitol.

If the Supreme Court ultimately agrees, Trump will actually seek to have the two obstruction charges he faces removed from his indictment.

One of those charges accuses him of conspiring with six other unidentified people, believed to be an organization of lawyers close to him, to disrupt the certification of the election that took place at the Capitol during a joint congressional consultation on Jan. 6. . The second count accuses him of obstructing the process.

We are retrieving the content of the article.

Please allow javascript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience as we determine access. If you’re in Reader mode, log out and log in to your Times account or subscribe to the full Times.

Thank you for your patience as we determine access.

Already a subscriber? Sign in.

Want all the Times? Subscribe.

Advertising

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *