1(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2023
Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
FISCHER v. UNITED STATES
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 23–5572. Argued April 16, 2024—Decided June 28, 2024
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 imposes criminal liability on anyone
who corruptly “alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, docu-
ment, 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.”
18 U. S. C. §1512(c)(1). The next subsection extends that prohibition
to anyone who “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official
proceeding, or attempts to do so.” §1512(c)(2). Petitioner Joseph
Fischer was charged with violating §1512(c)(2) for his conduct on Jan-
uary 6, 2021. On that day, Congress convened in a joint session to
certify the votes in the 2020 Presidential election. While they did so,
a crowd of supporters of then-President Donald Trump gathered out-
side the Capitol, and some eventually forced their way into the build-
ing, breaking windows and assaulting police. App. 189. This breach
of the Capitol delayed the certification of the vote. The criminal com-
plaint alleges that Fischer was among those who invaded the building.
Fischer was charged with various crimes for his actions on January 6,
including obstructing an official proceeding in violation of §1512(c)(2).
He moved to dismiss that charge, arguing that the provision criminal-
izes only attempts to impair the availability or integrity of evidence.
The District Court granted his motion in relevant part. A divided
panel of the D. C. Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceed-
ings.
Held: To prove a violation of §1512(c)(2), the Government must establish
that the defendant impaired 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.
(a) To determine the scope of the residual “otherwise” clause in
§1512(c)(2), the Court must decide how it is linked to its “surrounding