Free Republic

During oral arguments on Tuesday, Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito exposed the Biden administration’s inexcusable practice of selective prosecution of protesters and rioters. The case, Fischer v. United States, involved the contention by Pennsylvanian Joseph Fischer that the charges of “obstruct[ion of] … any official proceeding,” based on 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), should not apply to his actions during the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Fischer, who also was charged with assaulting police officers, is hardly a sympathetic figure. His claims that he wasn’t trying to obstruct or “impede” official (and important) congressional business, in the ordinary (nonlegal)...

We have often discussed how cities and universities will use the threat of protests to block or shutdown free speech, particularly of conservative speakers or groups. We now have a major decision out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that could prove an important precedent in resisting the growing anti-free speech movement in the United States. In Meinecke v. City of Seattle, the court ruled against Seattle in a case involving the arrest of a pro-life protester. Matthew Meinecke was harassed by Antifa and other counterprotesters, but police arrested Meineche when he refused to yield...

WASHINGTON (AP) — The most significant case in decades on homelessness has reached the Supreme Court as record numbers of people in America are without a permanent place to live. The justices on Monday will consider a challenge to rulings from a California-based appeals court that found punishing people for sleeping outside when shelter space is lacking amounts to unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment. A political cross section of officials in the West and California, home to nearly one-third of the nation’s homeless population, argue those decisions have restricted them from “common sense” measures intended to keep homeless encampments from...

Former President Trump warned of the consequences of losing his presidential immunity argument, saying that if he loses that protection, so will "crooked" President Joe Biden. > The former president and presumptive Republican presidential nominee argued that presidential immunity is essential to the proper functioning of the presidency in a Friday post to his Truth Social account. "Without presidential immunity, it would be impossible for a president to properly function, putting the United States of America in great and everlasting danger!" he posted, in all capital letters. "If they take away my presidential immunity, they take away crooked Joe Biden’s...

Under a legal theory endorsed by the 5th Circuit, Martin Luther King Jr. could have been liable for other people’s violence.In his last protest march, Martin Luther King Jr. led a parade of demonstrators down Beale Street in Memphis, lending his support to striking sanitation workers. After a few young black men started breaking storefront windows, the indiscriminate police response killed one suspected looter and injured dozens of protesters. Under a legal theory blessed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, King could have been held liable for the unanticipated harm that ensued from that March 1968...

by Julie KellyAs I noted yesterday, Elizabeth Prelogar totally misrepresented (lied?) how DOJ routinely handles sentencing requests for those convicted of 1512c2. Under questioning from Kavanaugh about prison sentences, Prelogar tried to make it sound like 1512c2 defendants with other nonviolent offenses (common misdemeanors) only get about 24 months in jail. She quickly mentioned the "Brock" case--referring to Larry Brock, a man from Texas convicted at bench trial of 1512c2 and 5 misdemeanors--and the "enhancement" recently overturned by DC appellate court in 1512c2 convictions. So what did DOJ ask for in Brock case? Not 24-26 months as Prelogar attempted to...

The Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday morning in the case of Fischer v. United States, one of the many criminal cases arising out of the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. Like defendants in a large subset of those cases, Joseph Fischer was charged, among other offenses, with obstruction of an official proceeding under 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2). Fischer’s case in the Supreme Court challenges whether the events of that day can be prosecuted using this obstruction statute. Most of the justices seemed dubious, or at a minimum concerned, about the Department of Justice’s very broad interpretation of the...

MINNEAPOLIS — The nation's highest court has rejected an appeal from MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell. The U.S. Supreme Court has declined Lindell's appeal over the FBI's seizure of his phone. It was taken in 2022 while Lindell was at a Hardee's drive-thru window in Mankato. The U.S. government was investigating accusations of Lindell sharing sensitive voting system information. The case is just one of several recent legal battles for Lindell. In March, a judge evicted MyPillow from a facility in Shakopee after the landlord filed a lawsuit claiming the company was at least $200,000 behind on rent payments. A month...

On Tuesday, oral arguments commenced in the case of Fischer vs. United States, scrutinizing the legitimacy of felony charges of obstructing an official proceeding against individuals involved in the January 6 United States Capitol riot. The court's ruling will carry significant weight, as it could potentially influence the fate of hundreds of defendants from the January 6 riot and potentially undermine certain federal charges against Donald Trump. Currently, the conservative wing of the court has expressed doubt regarding the government's case, which U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar is making. Notably, Justice Neil Gorsuch posed a question that was epic, to...

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday heard oral arguments in Fischer v. United States and at issue is statute 18 USC §1512(c)(2): 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. The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision on Fischer v United...

The Department of Injustice (DOJ) is using a statute called “obstructed a Congressional proceeding” to prosecute hundreds of these protesters simply for exercising their First Amendment rights. This statute is a serious felony with the potential of 20 years behind bars. CNN notes that this case also has implications for President Donald Trump, who was charged by corrupt special counsel Jack Smith for exercising his First Amendment rights on that fateful day. Justice Neil Gorsuch stole the show this morning by blowing up the foundation of the DOJ’s case against the nonviolent J6 protesters. While the Trump supporters simply exercised...

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas faced criticism on Tuesday over comments he made during a case focused on the January 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol. "In oral argument today, Justice Thomas is minimizing the severity of the 1/6 insurrection at the Capitol. Perhaps that's because his wife was part of the conspiracy. What a disgrace that he's sitting on this case," lawyer and former CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin wrote on X, formerly Twitter. Thomas made comments on Tuesday as the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case relating to the Capitol riot following the 2020 presidential election with...

This is the scariest video you’ll ever watch. You probably won’t see or read any of this anywhere else. And as usual, it’s all true. I’m going to tell you how they’re going to persuade you to kill yourself. And if they don’t succeed in getting you to commit suicide, then I’m going to tell you how they’re going to kill you. This is scary. It’s taken me weeks to put this together and I still find it disturbing. It is April 2024 and welcome to video 335. I said in my last video that I was taking a break...

The United States Supreme Court is holding arguments in Fischer v. US, a case that could reduce criminal charges filed against more than 350 Trump supporters who participated in the US Capitol protest on January 6, 2021.The Department of Injustice (DOJ) is using a statute called “obstructed a Congressional proceeding” to prosecute hundreds of these protesters simply for exercising their First Amendment rights. This statute is a serious felony with the potential of 20 years behind bars.

Conservative justices seem skeptical Tuesday about Justice Department arguments before the high court on the agency having used felony obstruction charges on over 300 people involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot. The case is titled Fischer v. United States. The plaintiff is Joseph Fischer who has been charged with "obstructing" an official proceeding – Congress' certification of the 2020 election results. Justice Clarence Thomas questioned the department attorney on whether the use of such charges have been applied in other protests, according to CNN. "There have been many violent protests that have interfered with proceedings," Thomas reportedly said....

The Supreme Court spent about an hour and a half on Tuesday morning arguing over whether to make it much harder for the Justice Department to prosecute hundreds of people who joined the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol. It appears, after Tuesday’s arguments, that a majority of the justices will side with the insurrectionists — though it is far from clear how those justices will justify such an outcome. The case, known as Fischer v. United States, involved a federal law which provides that anyone who “obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do...

The Supreme Court's conservative majority appeared skeptical of a charge federal prosecutors have lodged against hundreds of people who attacked the US Capitol on January 6, 2021. While the court’s three-justice liberal wing signaled support for the charge, the conservative majority raised a series of skeptical questions about its potential scope and whether it would criminalize other conduct, such as protests. A decision against the government could reopen some 350 cases in which defendants have been charged with “obstructing” an official proceeding by pushing their way into the Capitol in 2021. The charge can tack up to 20 years onto...

The Supreme Court released opinions on Tuesday in two cases argued earlier this term, rendering favorable rulings for a veteran plaintiff seeking educational benefits and a Texas landowner in a takings dispute. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored the first opinion of the day, a 7-2 decision that sided with veteran James Rudisill in his effort to take advantage of education benefits available under the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Rudisill served in the Army on three separate occasions between 2000 and 2011. The majority decision in Rudisill v. McDonough reversed a U.S. Court of Appeals for the...

We have the first opinion, from Justice Jackson in Rudisill v. McDonough. 8 The vote is 7-2, with a dissent by Thomas joined by Alito. This is a case about education benefits for veterans and whether the veteran can access benefits under the Post-9/11 Veterans Act without being subject to limits imposed by the Montgomery GI Bill. The Court holds that service members who, through separate periods of service, accrue benefits under both bills, can use either one, in any order, up to a 48-month aggregate cap. Kavanaugh files a concurring opinion that Barrett joins. Decision is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-888_1b8e.pdf The...

In Addition to being prohibited from attending my son Barron’s High School Graduation, I have just learned that the highly biased Judge in the Soros “appointed” D.A. Alvin Bragg’s Witch Hunt Case, will not allow me to attend the historic PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY argument in front of The United States Supreme Court, on Thursday, April 25th (next week!).