Supreme Court's Jan 6. Decision Comes at Turbulent Time

A police officer walks on the plaza of the US Supreme Court as the court hears arguments on the immunity of former US President Donald Trump, on April 25, 2024, in Washington, DC. In June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling on a case relating to the January 6 riots at the Capitol.

A ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on the January 6, 2021, riots at the Capitol is expected this summer and could come amid a turbulent time for the court.

Next month, the Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling on the Fischer v. United States case, relating to the January 6 riots and could alter how the Department of Justice can prosecute cases related to the mob at the Capitol that day.

The DOJ has charged hundreds of defendants with "obstruction of an official proceeding," a reference to their disrupting the Electoral College certification of President Joe Biden's win in the 2020 election. In 2023, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to the DOJ's interpretation of the obstruction charge, taking up the appeal from Joseph Fischer.

Fischer is a former Pennsylvania police officer who the government says had a physical encounter with another officer during the Capitol riot and urged rioters to "charge" and "hold the line."

The court is expected to rule in June and some defendants have already argued that they should be released pending the final ruling in the case.

The expected ruling on the case comes amid questions regarding Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, following a report from the New York Times regarding a flag that was seen outside of his home.

Earlier this month, the New York Times reported that an upside down American flag was seen flying outside of Alito's home on January 17, 2021. Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia, told the New York Times that the upside down flag is the "equivalent of putting a 'Stop the Steal' sign in your yard."

"Which is a problem if you're deciding election-related cases," Frost told the New York Times.

Stop the Steal was a slogan for supporters of former President Donald Trump and his baseless claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him.

In a statement to the New York Times, Alito said, "I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag."

"It was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor's use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs," Alito told the New York Times.

Michael McAuliffe, a former federal prosecutor, told Newsweek that "The Supreme Court's structural lack of transparency––its internal decision-making process is overwhelmingly secretive––leaves little room for good will when individual justices act as though the Court's members are exempt from questions about their behavior."

"That a sitting Supreme Court justice's home displays a unambiguous symbol of the January 6th Capitol riot and attempted insurrection is another serious blow to the Court's integrity. The Court's effectiveness is only as strong as the public's willingness to comply with its decisions. When the Court becomes just another governmental body with its members relying on politics and individual biases to reach decisions (or its perceived to be the case), the concept of a rule of law system becomes a dangerous falsehood," McAuliffe told Newsweek.

Earlier this week, the New York Times published another report, stating that an "Appeal to Heaven" flag was also seen outside of Alito's home. This flag was also seen flying during the riots at the Capitol.

"A second flag with a likely symbol of political aggression was observed at another home of the same justice. Someone took time and effort to acquire and display these flags. It wasn't isolated or done by mistake. The two incidents require a more detailed response than 'it's the spouse,' " McAuliffe said.

"The justices have to know that, at some point, their fundamental ability to act as a legitimate branch of government will be so eroded that their decisions might become merely advisory. The Court whisperer, if there is one, needs to start talking."

Newsweek reached out to the U.S. Supreme Court via email for comment.

Start your unlimited Newsweek trial