Supreme Court narrows application of obstruction statute used in January 6 case

News out of SCOTUS this morning, this time on the application of an obstruction statute regarding January 6th. Amon Jeffers. Carl, that's right, the Supreme Court here deciding in this case involving the obstruction charges against January 6th defendants, a lot of whom were facing this charge. The question was how broad or narrow will that charge be allowed to be by the Supreme Court? The court here holding that in order to prove a violation, the government must establish that the defendant paired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects or other things used in an official proceeding or attempted to do so. So the Supreme Court here narrowing prosecutors ability to make an obstruction case is important here in this case because Donald Trump also faces a similar charge here. A couple of interesting points on this. The person involved in this case, Fisher, is one of about 350 people who have been charged with obstruction in the January 6th cases. About 170 capital insurrection defendants have been convicted of obstructing or conspiring to obstruct the January 6th joint session of Congress. So this will affect those cases, although prosecutors have suggested that nobody will be completely exonerated as a result of this Supreme Court ruling. Not clear now how this is going to play into the Donald Trump case going forward, but clearly a narrowing here of prosecutors ability to make an obstruction charge against January 6th defendants. Guys, back over to you. Meantime, Amon, I wonder if you can put sort of in some perspective the decisions of the week, namely the Sloper Brite, the Chevron reversal which we just talked about, Couple that with what happened earlier in the week regarding in house proceedings at the SEC and what's happening to federal agency power. Yeah. I mean, I think this is a huge set back week if you're a big fan of federal, federal regulations, right? If you're an opponent of federal regulations, you are cheering. I would imagine that there will be some champagne broken out over at the US Chamber of Commerce at the end of the day today because this is the kind of Supreme Court that they wanted to see in terms of the regulatory state being rolled back. The Chevron decision that we saw earlier this morning, earlier this hour, Carl, is a sweeping one. It impacts federal agency's ability to interpret the law and their ability then to exert power in all kinds of proceedings that big corporations are dealing with them in that that will change the contours and texture of federal power for generations. And I think the other one I think that we can look at is Purdue Pharma, which was fascinating because in that case, you know, the Sackler family had come to this multi billion dollar decision. That decision now being thrown back to the deal makers, The Supreme Court not operating on a partisan basis in Purdue Pharma in terms of the Sackler family. All these other cases though, in terms of the regulatory state, you are getting these very conservative rulings that conservatives have cheered for and looked for for years. And this week, they got him.