The Supreme Court struggled Tuesday with the government’s case against 350 Jan. 6 defendants from the 2021 protest at the Capitol, with justices pondering how a law written in the wake of the Enron document-shredding scandal can be applied to those who brought the 2020 election certification to a halt.

The law criminalizes obstructing or impeding an official proceeding, which the Biden administration says goes beyond courtrooms and criminal investigations and covers Congress’ electoral vote counting that the demonstration delayed.

But GOP-appointed justices repeatedly challenged the Justice Department’s aggressive use of the law against the Jan. 6 defendants, questioning why it wasn’t also used in 2020 against rioters who attacked the federal courthouse in Portland, Oregon, or in 2023 against Rep. Jamaal Bowman, who disrupted a critical vote in the House of Representatives by pulling a fire alarm.

“Tell me why I shouldn’t be concerned about the breadth of the government’s reading,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked, referring to the use of the statute against Jan. 6 defendants. “Do you think it’s plausible Congress would have written a statute so broadly?”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said what happened on Jan. 6 was different.

“We have never had a situation before where there has been a situation like this with people attempting to stop a proceeding violently,” she said.

The case involves Joseph Fischer, a former police officer who attended the Stop the Steal rally on the Ellipse near the White House, then left Washington but returned later and joined the protest at the Capitol, though only after the vote counting was suspended.

Fischer entered the Capitol, made it about 20 feet into the building, was pushed by the crowd and bumped into a line of police officers. He got pepper sprayed, then left the building. He was inside for four minutes.

Federal authorities charged him with seven counts related to the Jan. 6 rally, but the one before the justices is Title 18 Section 1512(c), which reads:

“Whoever corruptly — (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”

That law was adopted by Congress after the 2001 Enron scandal, in which the company shredded documents to hide what it was doing.

Fischer is charged under the second section of the law, which Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said was a catch-all meant to capture all sorts of activities and official proceedings.

Jeffrey Green, Fischer’s lawyer, countered that it was aimed at evidence tampering, not riots.

“It is about the direct effect … on evidence that is to be used in the proceeding,” he said.

A U.S. district judge in Washington sided with Fischer and dismissed the charge, though other judges in other Jan. 6 cases allowed the law to be used.

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia sided with the Biden administration.

Ms. Prelogar said some 350 cases have included the obstruction charge.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh pointed out that prosecutors were able to bring six other charges against Fischer and wondered if it wasn’t overkill to go for the extra one.

“Why aren’t those six counts good enough?” he wondered.

Ms. Prelogar said the obstruction charge gets at the core of what happened with the Capitol protest.

“Those counts don’t fully reflect culpability of petitioner’s conduct on Jan. 6,” she said.

She also argued the statute doesn’t just apply to evidence as it has been used against individuals who revealed the identity of an undercover officer, or who tipped off the subject of a grand jury.

Still, other justices questioned why it wasn’t applied to other protesters of various proceedings — including the high court’s own arguments.

“There have been many violent protests that interfere with proceedings,” Justice Clarence Thomas said.

The obstruction charge does carry a large maximum penalty of up to 20 years in prison. Ms. Prelogar said some 50 cases have gone to sentencing where the obstruction charge was the top-level conviction and the average sentence has been 26 months in prison.

Some legal analysts have said the case could affect at least some of the charges special counsel Jack Smith has brought against former President Donald Trump. Mr. Trump faces the same charge at issue in Fischer’s case.

Mr. Trump’s name did not come up, but the justices did wonder why other high-profile cases haven’t been charged under this section of law.

Though the high court heard arguments in Fischer’s case Tuesday, a decision is not expected right away. It could come by the end of June before the high court wraps up its term.

• Stephen Dinan can be reached at sdinan@washingtontimes.com.

• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.