Topic 9--The U.S. Constitution and Obstruction
Obstruction of an Official Proceeding in American Government
Case Title: Obstruction and the Rule of Law – From Capitol Rioters to Presidents
A definition of obstruction and how it relates to Congressional mandates dictated by the Constitution.
Essential Question: What is obstruction and how does it apply to those accused of this crime?
Overview
The Constitution criminalizes "obstructing, influencing, or impeding any official proceeding, or attempting to do so." This statute applies in cases where a person corruptly obstructs an official proceeding of the U.S. government, such as a Congressional session. The constitutional basis for these charges arises from Congress's authority to enact laws governing federal crimes and ensure its proceedings' integrity. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to make all laws that are "necessary and proper" for executing its powers, including laws to protect the legislative process. The Necessary and Proper Clause found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, allows Congress to create laws essential to executing its enumerated powers. Laws criminalizing the obstruction of official proceedings protect the proper functioning of government. The Separation of Powers Doctrine establishes a system of checks and balances among the three branches of government. Ensuring that official proceedings remain unobstructed is essential for maintaining the legislative branch's independence and functioning. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires that institutions provide fair notice of what conduct is prohibited. Courts affirmed that the language in 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) is specific enough to meet this requirement, though some debate its interpretation. Courts also upheld the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) in several cases. For instance, in United States v. Aguilar (1995), the Supreme Court upheld the use of an obstruction statute in cases involving obstruction of judicial proceedings, and similar logic was extended to obstruction of Congressional proceedings. Overall, the constitutional basis for obstruction charges is rooted in Congress's power to legislate to protect its processes and the broader principle of maintaining the rule of law in the government. The Separation of Powers Doctrine in the Constitution establishes a system of checks and balances among the three branches of government.
Many of the January 6th insurrectionists faced obstruction charges for attempting to interfere with the certification of the Electoral College results from the 2020 presidential election. The Obstruction of an Official Proceeding (18 U.S. Code § 1512(c)(2)) law makes it a crime to "corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede any official proceeding or attempt to do so." The certification of the Electoral College votes on January 6, 2021, is considered an official proceeding of Congress. Many participated in storming the Capitol to disrupt Congress in the January 6 riot. They entered the U.S. Capitol building unlawfully, breaking through police barriers and engaging in violence and vandalism. As captured in social media posts, videos, and other evidence, their stated goal was to stop Congress from certifying Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election. The rioters forced their way into the Capitol, breaking windows and doors, leading to a lockdown and evacuation of Congress members. Their actions resulted in several injuries and deaths and directly disrupted the certification process, delaying the proceedings for several hours. Many rioters coordinated their actions through planning and communication before January 6. Evidence such as messages, social media posts, and recorded statements revealed that some participants believed they could pressure Congress and Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the election results. The "obstruction of an official proceeding" charge was widely used against January 6th defendants because it encompasses a range of actions beyond violence. Even those who did not engage directly in violent acts but were present and played a role in the chaos can be charged under this statute if prosecutors can show intent to disrupt the certification process.
Courts have mostly upheld the use of this obstruction statute in the context of the January 6 riot. However, there are debates and legal challenges over its application, particularly regarding whether the statute covers this type of political protest. Currently, most judges agree that the events of January 6 meet the criteria for obstruction under this law. Overall, the obstruction charges reflect the gravity with which prosecutors and the justice system view the attempt to stop a fundamental democratic process by force and intimidation. These charges carry significant penalties, including potential prison sentences, to underscore the seriousness of attacking or disrupting the peaceful transfer of power. However, a Supreme Court decision in a case called Yates v. United States (2015) created complications for some obstruction charges against January 6 insurrectionists. The ruling in Yates involved interpreting the federal obstruction statute under 18 U.S. Code § 1512(c)(2), the same statute used against many of the January 6 defendants. In Yates v. United States, the Supreme Court interpreted the phrase "tangible object" within a provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, aiming to prevent corporate fraud. The case involved a fisherman charged with obstruction for throwing undersized fish overboard to avoid prosecution. The Court ruled that "tangible object" is interpreted narrowly, referring only to objects used to record or preserve information (like documents or hard drives), rather than any physical object (like fish). The obstruction charges against January 6 insurrectionists fall under 18 U.S. Code § 1512(c)(2), which makes it a crime to "corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede any official proceeding or attempt to do so." Some defense attorneys argue for a narrower interpretation of the stature based on Yates's decision. They contend that the law applies to cases involving evidence tampering or destruction, not to broader actions like disrupting a congressional proceeding through a riot.
The defense argument is that the phrase "otherwise obstructs" in § 1512(c)(2) should be read in the context of tampering with documents or evidence, similar to how "tangible object" was narrowly construed in Yates. If successful, this interpretation could limit the statute's use against defendants whose actions did not involve document destruction or tampering. Judges in different federal districts vary in their interpretations of this statute's applicability, creating a patchwork of rulings. Some judges dismissed obstruction charges based on a narrower reading, while others allowed them to proceed, interpreting the statute more broadly. The ambiguity created by the Supreme Court's Yates decision may create different outcomes in the cases of the January 6 defendants. It may result in the dismissal of some obstruction charges if higher courts, including the Supreme Court, rule that the statute does not apply as broadly as prosecutors argued. The Department of Justice maintains that the statute applies to the actions of the insurrectionists because their conduct "corruptly" obstructed an official proceeding, which is the certification of the Electoral College vote. Given the conflicting interpretations in lower courts, the Supreme Court may eventually clarify the scope of § 1512(c)(2) about events like the January 6 insurrection. A Supreme Court ruling could either uphold the broader use of the obstruction statute or limit its application, significantly impacting ongoing and future prosecutions. Overall, the Yates decision introduces a legal question over the interpretation of obstruction statutes, complicating efforts to uniformly prosecute those involved in the January 6th riot regarding obstruction.
Donald Trump faces multiple investigations and charges, including some related to obstruction of justice. Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation lasted from 2017-2019. The investigation looked into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and possible collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia. Mueller's report detailed several obstruction actions by Trump, including the fact that he asked then-FBI Director James Comey to drop the investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Then, he fired Comey, which some view as an attempt to end the Russia investigation. He also pressured then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to un-recuse himself and limit the scope of the investigation. While Mueller's report outlined these actions, it did not explicitly conclude whether Trump committed obstruction of justice. The Department of Justice did not pursue charges then, citing guidelines against indicting a sitting president. In 2023, Trump's handling of classified documents after leaving office resulted in charges. The investigation centers around whether Trump improperly took classified documents to his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, obstructing the investigation into their recovery. Trump was charged with several counts, including obstruction of justice. The charges allege that he directed his staff to move boxes containing classified documents to avoid their detection by the FBI and a grand jury. Trump is also accused of instructing his aides and employees to lie to investigators or hide documents. Trump also faces charges related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in a separate investigation surrounding the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. Specifically, he is charged with conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding relating to his alleged efforts to block the certification of the Electoral College results by Congress on January 6, 2021. These obstruction-related charges are significant components of the broader legal challenges Trump faces. If convicted, these charges could carry serious legal consequences.
Case Study: Obstruction of an Official Proceeding in American GovernmentCase Title: Obstruction and the Rule of Law – From Capitol Rioters to PresidentsEssential QuestionWhat is obstruction, and how does the U.S. Constitution define and apply this crime to individuals, including elected officials and citizens?
Overview: Obstruction and the Constitution
The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to protect its proceedings through laws criminalizing obstruction. Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 — known as the Necessary and Proper Clause — enables Congress to pass laws that ensure the integrity of its official functions.
” This law has been crucial in prosecuting individuals who interfere with governmental processes, from judicial inquiries to Congressional sessions.
The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires that laws give fair notice of prohibited conduct. Courts have upheld § 1512(c)(2)’s constitutionality, affirming its clarity and application.
Part I: January 6th – A Modern Test CaseOn January 6, 2021, a mob stormed the U.S. Capitol during the certification of the Electoral College results, attempting to stop Congress from finalizing the 2020 presidential election.
Key Facts:
Legal Debate:
Part II: Obstruction and the Presidency – The Case of Donald TrumpFormer President Donald J. Trump has faced multiple investigations involving obstruction-related charges.
Mueller Investigation (2017–2019):
Constitutional Themes in the Case StudyConceptApplicationSeparation of PowersEnsures the legislative process is free from external interference. Obstruction undermines this balance.
Checks and BalancesJudiciary interprets obstruction laws; Executive is subject to legal accountability.
Due ProcessStatutes must be clear; courts assess whether laws give fair notice.
Criminal StatutesCongress uses its legislative power to criminalize acts like obstruction to protect democracy.
Discussion Questions
Extension Activity: Mock Hearing or DebateScenario: Students role-play as members of Congress, Department of Justice attorneys, defense attorneys, and Supreme Court justices.
Task: Debate or hold a hearing on whether 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) should be amended to clarify its scope.
Goal: Explore legal interpretation, constitutional reasoning, and public policy in a democratic society.
Assessment Options
Overview
The Constitution criminalizes "obstructing, influencing, or impeding any official proceeding, or attempting to do so." This statute applies in cases where a person corruptly obstructs an official proceeding of the U.S. government, such as a Congressional session. The constitutional basis for these charges arises from Congress's authority to enact laws governing federal crimes and ensure its proceedings' integrity. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to make all laws that are "necessary and proper" for executing its powers, including laws to protect the legislative process. The Necessary and Proper Clause found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, allows Congress to create laws essential to executing its enumerated powers. Laws criminalizing the obstruction of official proceedings protect the proper functioning of government. The Separation of Powers Doctrine establishes a system of checks and balances among the three branches of government. Ensuring that official proceedings remain unobstructed is essential for maintaining the legislative branch's independence and functioning. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires that institutions provide fair notice of what conduct is prohibited. Courts affirmed that the language in 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) is specific enough to meet this requirement, though some debate its interpretation. Courts also upheld the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) in several cases. For instance, in United States v. Aguilar (1995), the Supreme Court upheld the use of an obstruction statute in cases involving obstruction of judicial proceedings, and similar logic was extended to obstruction of Congressional proceedings. Overall, the constitutional basis for obstruction charges is rooted in Congress's power to legislate to protect its processes and the broader principle of maintaining the rule of law in the government. The Separation of Powers Doctrine in the Constitution establishes a system of checks and balances among the three branches of government.
Many of the January 6th insurrectionists faced obstruction charges for attempting to interfere with the certification of the Electoral College results from the 2020 presidential election. The Obstruction of an Official Proceeding (18 U.S. Code § 1512(c)(2)) law makes it a crime to "corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede any official proceeding or attempt to do so." The certification of the Electoral College votes on January 6, 2021, is considered an official proceeding of Congress. Many participated in storming the Capitol to disrupt Congress in the January 6 riot. They entered the U.S. Capitol building unlawfully, breaking through police barriers and engaging in violence and vandalism. As captured in social media posts, videos, and other evidence, their stated goal was to stop Congress from certifying Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election. The rioters forced their way into the Capitol, breaking windows and doors, leading to a lockdown and evacuation of Congress members. Their actions resulted in several injuries and deaths and directly disrupted the certification process, delaying the proceedings for several hours. Many rioters coordinated their actions through planning and communication before January 6. Evidence such as messages, social media posts, and recorded statements revealed that some participants believed they could pressure Congress and Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the election results. The "obstruction of an official proceeding" charge was widely used against January 6th defendants because it encompasses a range of actions beyond violence. Even those who did not engage directly in violent acts but were present and played a role in the chaos can be charged under this statute if prosecutors can show intent to disrupt the certification process.
Courts have mostly upheld the use of this obstruction statute in the context of the January 6 riot. However, there are debates and legal challenges over its application, particularly regarding whether the statute covers this type of political protest. Currently, most judges agree that the events of January 6 meet the criteria for obstruction under this law. Overall, the obstruction charges reflect the gravity with which prosecutors and the justice system view the attempt to stop a fundamental democratic process by force and intimidation. These charges carry significant penalties, including potential prison sentences, to underscore the seriousness of attacking or disrupting the peaceful transfer of power. However, a Supreme Court decision in a case called Yates v. United States (2015) created complications for some obstruction charges against January 6 insurrectionists. The ruling in Yates involved interpreting the federal obstruction statute under 18 U.S. Code § 1512(c)(2), the same statute used against many of the January 6 defendants. In Yates v. United States, the Supreme Court interpreted the phrase "tangible object" within a provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, aiming to prevent corporate fraud. The case involved a fisherman charged with obstruction for throwing undersized fish overboard to avoid prosecution. The Court ruled that "tangible object" is interpreted narrowly, referring only to objects used to record or preserve information (like documents or hard drives), rather than any physical object (like fish). The obstruction charges against January 6 insurrectionists fall under 18 U.S. Code § 1512(c)(2), which makes it a crime to "corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede any official proceeding or attempt to do so." Some defense attorneys argue for a narrower interpretation of the stature based on Yates's decision. They contend that the law applies to cases involving evidence tampering or destruction, not to broader actions like disrupting a congressional proceeding through a riot.
The defense argument is that the phrase "otherwise obstructs" in § 1512(c)(2) should be read in the context of tampering with documents or evidence, similar to how "tangible object" was narrowly construed in Yates. If successful, this interpretation could limit the statute's use against defendants whose actions did not involve document destruction or tampering. Judges in different federal districts vary in their interpretations of this statute's applicability, creating a patchwork of rulings. Some judges dismissed obstruction charges based on a narrower reading, while others allowed them to proceed, interpreting the statute more broadly. The ambiguity created by the Supreme Court's Yates decision may create different outcomes in the cases of the January 6 defendants. It may result in the dismissal of some obstruction charges if higher courts, including the Supreme Court, rule that the statute does not apply as broadly as prosecutors argued. The Department of Justice maintains that the statute applies to the actions of the insurrectionists because their conduct "corruptly" obstructed an official proceeding, which is the certification of the Electoral College vote. Given the conflicting interpretations in lower courts, the Supreme Court may eventually clarify the scope of § 1512(c)(2) about events like the January 6 insurrection. A Supreme Court ruling could either uphold the broader use of the obstruction statute or limit its application, significantly impacting ongoing and future prosecutions. Overall, the Yates decision introduces a legal question over the interpretation of obstruction statutes, complicating efforts to uniformly prosecute those involved in the January 6th riot regarding obstruction.
Donald Trump faces multiple investigations and charges, including some related to obstruction of justice. Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation lasted from 2017-2019. The investigation looked into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and possible collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia. Mueller's report detailed several obstruction actions by Trump, including the fact that he asked then-FBI Director James Comey to drop the investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Then, he fired Comey, which some view as an attempt to end the Russia investigation. He also pressured then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to un-recuse himself and limit the scope of the investigation. While Mueller's report outlined these actions, it did not explicitly conclude whether Trump committed obstruction of justice. The Department of Justice did not pursue charges then, citing guidelines against indicting a sitting president. In 2023, Trump's handling of classified documents after leaving office resulted in charges. The investigation centers around whether Trump improperly took classified documents to his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, obstructing the investigation into their recovery. Trump was charged with several counts, including obstruction of justice. The charges allege that he directed his staff to move boxes containing classified documents to avoid their detection by the FBI and a grand jury. Trump is also accused of instructing his aides and employees to lie to investigators or hide documents. Trump also faces charges related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in a separate investigation surrounding the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. Specifically, he is charged with conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding relating to his alleged efforts to block the certification of the Electoral College results by Congress on January 6, 2021. These obstruction-related charges are significant components of the broader legal challenges Trump faces. If convicted, these charges could carry serious legal consequences.
Case Study: Obstruction of an Official Proceeding in American GovernmentCase Title: Obstruction and the Rule of Law – From Capitol Rioters to PresidentsEssential QuestionWhat is obstruction, and how does the U.S. Constitution define and apply this crime to individuals, including elected officials and citizens?
Overview: Obstruction and the Constitution
The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to protect its proceedings through laws criminalizing obstruction. Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 — known as the Necessary and Proper Clause — enables Congress to pass laws that ensure the integrity of its official functions.
” This law has been crucial in prosecuting individuals who interfere with governmental processes, from judicial inquiries to Congressional sessions.
The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires that laws give fair notice of prohibited conduct. Courts have upheld § 1512(c)(2)’s constitutionality, affirming its clarity and application.
Part I: January 6th – A Modern Test CaseOn January 6, 2021, a mob stormed the U.S. Capitol during the certification of the Electoral College results, attempting to stop Congress from finalizing the 2020 presidential election.
Key Facts:
- Rioters unlawfully entered the Capitol.
- The intent was to halt certification of Joe Biden’s election.
- Evidence shows coordination and intent to pressure officials, including Vice President Pence.
- Violence and threats led to the evacuation and delay of Congress.
Legal Debate:
- Critics argue the statute was designed for evidence tampering, referencing Yates v. United States (2015), where the Supreme Court narrowly interpreted “tangible object” in a different section of the same law.
- Defense attorneys claim that “otherwise obstructs” should apply to evidence-related crimes, not broader disruptions like protests or riots.
- Lower courts have issued mixed rulings, and a future Supreme Court decision may resolve the interpretative divide.
Part II: Obstruction and the Presidency – The Case of Donald TrumpFormer President Donald J. Trump has faced multiple investigations involving obstruction-related charges.
Mueller Investigation (2017–2019):
- Explored Russian interference in the 2016 election.
- Cited actions including pressuring FBI Director James Comey to drop an investigation, later firing him.
- Mueller did not charge Trump due to DOJ policies against indicting a sitting president but documented possible obstruction.
- Allegations that Trump instructed aides to move and hide classified documents.
- Accused of directing staff to lie and conceal evidence from investigators and a grand jury.
- Charged with obstruction of justice and other offenses.
- Trump is also charged with conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, related to his alleged efforts to block the 2020 Electoral College certification.
Constitutional Themes in the Case StudyConceptApplicationSeparation of PowersEnsures the legislative process is free from external interference. Obstruction undermines this balance.
Checks and BalancesJudiciary interprets obstruction laws; Executive is subject to legal accountability.
Due ProcessStatutes must be clear; courts assess whether laws give fair notice.
Criminal StatutesCongress uses its legislative power to criminalize acts like obstruction to protect democracy.
Discussion Questions
- What distinguishes political protest from criminal obstruction?
- Should the interpretation of obstruction statutes like § 1512(c)(2) be narrow or broad? Why?
- How does the Yates ruling affect the prosecution of January 6 defendants?
- What are the constitutional implications of charging a former president with obstruction?
- How does the government ensure due process when applying broad statutes to novel situations?
Extension Activity: Mock Hearing or DebateScenario: Students role-play as members of Congress, Department of Justice attorneys, defense attorneys, and Supreme Court justices.
Task: Debate or hold a hearing on whether 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) should be amended to clarify its scope.
Goal: Explore legal interpretation, constitutional reasoning, and public policy in a democratic society.
Assessment Options
- Short Essay: Analyze the constitutionality of using obstruction charges against the January 6 rioters.
- Research Assignment: Compare obstruction charges in the Trump cases with similar historical precedents.
- Presentation: Create a timeline of the events of January 6 and how the law responded.