Fischer v. United States
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Fischer v. United States and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Fischer v. United States.
In Fischer v. United States, the Supreme Court addressed the scope of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which criminalizes obstruction of official proceedings. The Court examined whether this provision applies broadly to all forms of obstruction or is limited to actions affecting the integrity or availability of evidence. The Court concluded that § 1512(c)(2) is limited by the examples listed in § 1512(c)(1) and does not cover all obstructive acts.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Fischer v. United States.
The Court held that to prove a violation of § 1512(c)(2), the government must show that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity of records, documents, or objects used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Fischer v. United States. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Due Process is relevant to Fischer v. United States
The case involves interpretation of a criminal statute and the requirement to apply laws as written, which relates to procedural due process.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Our commitment to equal justice and the rule of law requires the courts to faithfully apply criminal laws as written, even in periods of national crisis.
-
Why Separation of Powers is relevant to Fischer v. United States
The case discusses the legislative power to define crimes and set penalties, which relates to the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)We have long recognized that 'the power of punishment is vested in the legislative, not in the judicial department.'
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Fischer v. United States that support the summary and concepts above.
The Court considers both 'the specific context' in which (c)(2) appears 'and the broader context of the statute as a whole.'
The 'otherwise' provision of § 1512(c)(2) is limited by the list of specific criminal violations that precede it in (c)(1).
Our usual approach in obstruction cases has been to 'resist reading' particular sub-provisions 'to create a coverall' statute.