最高法院就安然时代法律的使用发表意见：特朗普在豁免裁决前获得支持 - 彭博社

唐纳德·特朗普

摄影师：汉娜·贝尔/彭博社美国最高法院周五的裁决限制检察官如何使用一项恩隆时代的阻碍法，可能会给唐纳德·特朗普提供新的理由来反对他试图推翻2020年选举结果的指控。

大多数法官认为，根据2002年的一项法律进行起诉以阻碍官方程序必须涉及文件或其他信息和证据。首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨写道，仅仅声称被告广泛试图阻止程序进行并不足够。

尽管这项裁决最直接涉及被控参与2021年1月6日袭击美国国会大厦的特朗普支持者，但特朗普的刑事案件却占据主导地位。四项重罪中的两项指控他违反了同一项阻碍法；一项指控他违反了该法，另一项指控他串谋犯罪。

他的律师对这些指控提出了挑战，这些指控在他与特别检察官杰克·史密斯就他是否因为当时是总统而享有豁免权而争论期间一直搁置。

阅读更多： 最高法院支持1月6日被告，限制恩隆法律的使用

星期五法院发布意见后，特朗普在他的Truth Social平台上发帖“大胜利！”。史密斯办公室的发言人并未立即回复评论请求。

预计最高法院将在下周就免疫案件作出裁决。即使大法官们拒绝特朗普绝对免疫的主张，他们仍可能认为他在官方行为相关指控方面受到保护，并将其送回给美国地方法官塔尼娅·楚特坎进行另一轮诉讼。如果特朗普在免疫问题上失败，楚特坎将审查此前搁置的对起诉书的其他挑战。

在十月提交的文件中，特朗普的律师辩称将妨碍法律应用于他在选举后的行为“威胁将普通政治活动的广泛范围定罪。”

政府为法律的更广泛解释进行了辩护，依据一项与1月6日相关案件有关的联邦上诉法院的裁决。然而，该裁决在星期五被最高法院撤销。政府为法律的更广泛解释进行了辩护，依据一项与1月6日相关案件有关的联邦上诉法院的裁决。然而，该裁决在星期五被最高法院撤销。

但检察官还辩称，这些指控应在更狭窄的范围内存活，重点放在文件和证据上，因为这些指控涉及与国会选举认证有关的文件。

周五加入罗伯茨多数意见的贾克逊大法官在一份附带意见中写道，法院为检察官继续追究1月6日袭击事件被告的妨碍指控留下了余地。她写道，被告参与国会大厦袭击“可能涉及损害（或试图损害）1月6日程序中使用的事物的可用性或完整性。”

Congress’ certification of the election, Jackson wrote, “plainly used certain records, documents, or objects — including, among others, those relating to the electoral votes themselves.”

Jackson didn’t specifically address any implications for Trump’s case, nor did Roberts in the majority opinion or Justice Amy Coney Barrett in a dissent.

‘Creating False Evidence’

Randall Eliason, a former federal prosecutor and professor at George Washington University Law School, said he didn’t think the ruling would doom the counts in Trump’s indictment because the court held that “creating false evidence” could violate the obstruction law.

“The fake electors scheme would fall within that,” Eliason said, referring to the convening of pro-Trump electors in states that President Joe Biden won to sign false certificates declaring Trump the winner. He said the decision could affect how prosecutors tailor their presentation to a jury.

But Kermit Roosevelt, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, said it might be harder for prosecutors to prove Trump had a direct hand in creating the false certificates. He said it appeared the high court was trying to tip the balance to favor Trump.

“I’m not sure that his connection is close enough,” Roosevelt said.

The US Supreme Court sided with a Jan. 6 Capitol riot defendant in a ruling that could affect hundreds of prosecutions, including the criminal case in Washington against former President Donald Trump.

Voting 6-3, the justices limited the Justice Department’s use of a 2002 law that makes it a crime to obstruct an official proceeding. The majority said that law, enacted in response to the Enron Corp. collapse, is designed to protect documents and other records and wouldn’t apply simply to the act of trying to stop a congressional proceeding.