Court sides with Justice Dept. on Jan. 6 obstruction charge

WASHINGTON - A federal appeals court sided Friday with the Justice Department in a case that could have upended hundreds of charges brought in the Capitol riot investigation.

The decision, however, leaves open the possibility of further challenges to the charge of obstruction of Congress, which has been brought against more than 300 defendants in the massive federal prosecutions following the Jan. 6, 2021, riot.

In a 2-1 ruling, a three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said a lower court judge was wrong in dismissing the charge in three cases in which the judge concluded it didn’t cover the defendants’ conduct. Those defendants may ask the full appeals court or the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision.

The charge of obstruction of an official proceeding, which carries up to 20 years behind bars, is among the most widely used felony charges in the Jan. 6 cases. It has been brought against extremists accused of plotting to stop the transfer of presidential power from Republican Donald Trump to Democrat Joe Biden as well as in dozens of less serious cases.

Dozens of people have already pleaded guilty to the charge or been convicted at trial.

The Justice Department has argued that the offense — punishing anyone who "corruptly" obstructs or impedes an "official proceeding" — clearly fits the conduct of the rioters who halted Congress’ certification of Biden’s 2020 election victory.

But U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols found that prosecutors stretched the law beyond its scope to inappropriately apply it in these cases. Nichols ruled that a defendant must have taken "some action with respect to a document, record or other object" in order to obstruct an official proceeding under the law.

Capitol Riot: Nation’s capital marks 2 years since January 6 insurrection

The nation's capital is marking two years since a violent mob of supporters of then-President Donald Trump, fueled by his false claims of a stolen election, attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

The Justice Department appealed, arguing that Nichols’ interpretation of the law was too limited.

In her appeals court ruling, Judge Florence Pan noted that Nichols — an appointee of Trump — was the only lower court judge overseeing Jan. 6 cases to rule that way; every other judge who considered it said that it was correctly used.

"Although the opinions of those district judges are not binding on us, the near unanimity of the rulings is striking, as well as the thorough and persuasive reasoning in the decision," wrote Pan, who was appointed by Biden.

Circuit Appeals Judge Gregory Katsas, however, sided with Nichols, writing that prosecutors’ interpretation of the law was overly broad, especially for a crime that carries such a long potential sentence.

The law has been on the books for two decades and used thousands of times, but until the Jan. 6 prosecutions it had been used only against people accused of damaging or impairing evidence, the Trump appointee wrote.

If the charge covers anything that "obstructs, influences or impedes an official proceeding," it could also potentially criminalize other common ways that people try to convince lawmakers of their point of view, including advocacy, lobbying or protesting, he wrote.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.