The Supreme Court just handed down a ruling that could ruin Jack Smith’s prosecution of Donald Trump and January 6 defendants

Special Counsel Jack Smith indicted Donald Trump on four counts related to the events at the Capitol on January 6.

But Smith just received an unexpected surprise from the Supreme Court.

And the Supreme Court just handed down a ruling that could ruin Jack Smith’s prosecution of Donald Trump and January 6 defendants.

Accounting law used to target Donald Trump and his supporters

Former President Donald Trump and hundreds of his supporters are facing charges for obstructing an official proceeding over the events of January 6.

In Special Counsel Jack Smith’s four-count criminal indictment against Trump, one of the charges is for obstructing an official proceeding and conspiracy to do it.

But he used a law passed after the energy company Enron’s collapse, obstructing an official proceeding, to bring charges against Trump.

As Breitbart reported, the law “was passed after the Enron scandal, when it was discovered that federal law had a loophole: it was illegal to instruct others to destroy evidence, but not illegal to destroy evidence oneself.” 

“Consequently, Congress passed a law prohibiting tampering with witnesses or evidence that is to be used in an ‘official proceeding,’” Breitbart added.

This law was used to prosecute Trump and hundreds of January 6 defendants for obstructing an official proceeding by interrupting the certification of the Electoral College vote.

Jack Smith handed crushing legal defeat

But Joseph Fischer, who was charged under the law for entering the Capitol Building on January 6, challenged the charges in a case that went all the way to the Supreme Court.

And on Friday, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in the case.

The Court ruled that Fischer could not be prosecuted under the “Enron” statute. 

This ruling could lead to dozens of convictions of January 6 defendants being overturned.

It could lead to two of Donald Trump’s charges being dropped as well.

“To prove a violation of Section 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 as we earlier explained, other things used in the proceeding, or attempted to do so,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. 

In a surprising twist, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred with the majority while Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the dissent.

“Section 1512(c)(2) is a very broad provision, and admittedly, events like January 6th were not its target,” Barrett wrote. “But statutes often go further than the problem that inspired them, and under the rules of statutory interpretation, we stick to the text anyway.” 

The Supreme Court just dealt a major blow to Jack Smith’s witch hunt against Donald Trump and his supporters.