The Supreme Court will consider a "sleeper" case that may impact Trump's federal prosecution.

The outcome of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on an obscure Capitol riot defendant could have significant legal and political implications for the former and possibly future president, potentially upending the most closely watched criminal prosecution in the nation.

On Tuesday, the justices will hear oral arguments in the appeal of Joseph Fischer, one of over 300 individuals charged by the Justice Department for "obstruction of an official proceeding" in the January 6, 2021, insurrection in Washington.

The charge pertains to the interruption of Congress's confirmation of Joe Biden's 2020 presidential election triumph over Donald Trump.

Trump is facing four counts, including obstruction of justice, in a trial brought by special counsel Jack Smith. The trial was scheduled to begin March 4, but the Supreme Court's decision to hear the case and a separate dispute over Trump's claim of presidential immunity have delayed proceedings indefinitely.

THE CHARGES

A federal judge recently ruled that the obstruction offense did not apply to three Jan. 6 criminal defendants, including former police patrolman Fischer, Garret Miller from the Dallas area, and Edward Jacob Lang from New York's Hudson Valley.

Fischer's appeal was the one the high court accepted for final review.

Judge Nichols, appointed to the U.S. District Court in 2019 by President Trump, ruled that prosecutors exceeded the law's bounds in these cases by applying it inappropriately. According to the judge, a defendant must have taken some action related to a document, record, or object to obstruct an official proceeding under the law.

He determined that the statute in question centered on altering evidence and did not pertain to individuals accused of "assaultive behavior," such as engaging in a riot.

The federal appeals court in Washington concurred with prosecutors that Nichols' interpretation of the law was too narrow, as the Justice Department had challenged the ruling.

The three-judge appellate panel wrote that the vast majority of courts interpreting the statute have adopted a natural, broad reading of the provision, applying it to all forms of obstructive conduct that are not specifically covered under that provision.

Trump and other defendants are separately challenging the use of the charge, but not as part of the current Supreme Court appeal.

The Corporate Fraud Accountability Act, part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, outlines penalties for anyone who corruptly attempts to obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding, including fines of up to 20 years in prison.

In 2002, Congress enacted a law following the Enron scandal, where executives at the Texas-based energy company were accused of fraud and the company eventually filed for bankruptcy.

In his ruling in the Miller case, Judge Nichols cited then-Sen. Biden, who at the time referred to the new provision as "criminalizing document shredding."

COMPETING CLAIMS

The government and Fischer, who was a North Cornwall Township Police officer in Pennsylvania at the time, present conflicting narratives regarding his behavior on January 6, 2021.

Fischer's lawyers argue in his high court appeal that he was not part of the mob that stopped the electoral certification; he arrived at the Capitol grounds after Congress had recessed.

Fischer, who admits to entering the Capitol building and pushing through the crowd, also claims to have returned a pair of lost handcuffs to a U.S. Capitol Police officer. After being pepper-sprayed by law enforcement, he left the complex just four minutes after entering.

The Justice Department claims that Fischer was caught on video yelling "Charge!" before pushing through the crowd and entering the building. After entering, Fischer ran towards a line of police officers with another rioter while yelling a profanity.

The government highlights text messages sent by the individual prior to the "Stop the Steal" rally and subsequent march to the Capitol.

"Hang the democratic congress," he wrote in one post, and, "They can't vote if they can't breathe... lol."

Fischer has pleaded not guilty to charges such as disorderly conduct, assaulting law enforcement officers, civil disorder, and obstruction. His trial is yet to begin.

Fischer's conduct on the Capitol grounds is not clear-cut hindering or affecting an official proceeding, according to his legal team.

"The First Amendment safeguards political speech, including lobbying, advocacy, and protest, which are the tools citizens use to impact government."

The government claims that Congress intended for the statute to be broadly applied, encompassing "corruptly engaging in conduct to obstruct court, agency, and congressional proceedings."

Government lawyers stated that on January 6, 2021, petitioner and other rioters attempted to corruptly hinder Congress from certifying the Electoral College votes during the joint session, as evidenced by the proof in this case.

Some legal experts believe the conservative Supreme Court may be cautious about granting the government excessive power.

According to Thomas Dupree, a leading appellate attorney and former top Bush Justice Department official, prosecutors favor obstruction and conspiracy statutes because these statutes are broad and can be used in various situations to cover a wide range of conduct.

"What was Congress's intention when they criminalized these actions? Did they intend for the laws to have such a broad scope? Can a statute intended to address corporate crimes be applied to the events of Jan. 6?"

TRUMP FACTOR

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Fischer, Trump may be able to ask the federal courts to dismiss his own obstruction charge.

If the Supreme Court's decision is challenged, it could lead to a new round of legal appeals that may ultimately end up back at the Supreme Court for a final review.

The justices will discuss Trump's immunity from prosecution for election interference allegations nine days after oral arguments in the Fischer case.

That has paused Trump's criminal conspiracy and obstruction trial indefinitely.

The obstruction charge challenge would likely delay the schedule until next year.

The upcoming high court case is Fischer v. U.S. (23-5572), and a decision is anticipated by early summer.