最高法院就安然時代法律的使用發表意見：特朗普在豁免裁決前獲得支持 - 彭博社

唐納德·特朗普

攝影師：漢娜·貝爾/彭博社美國最高法院週五的裁決限制檢察官如何使用一項恩隆時代的阻礙法，可能會給唐納德·特朗普提供新的理由來反對他試圖推翻2020年選舉結果的指控。

大多數法官認為，根據2002年的一項法律進行起訴以阻礙官方程序必須涉及文件或其他信息和證據。首席大法官約翰·羅伯茨寫道，僅僅聲稱被告廣泛試圖阻止程序進行並不足夠。

儘管這項裁決最直接涉及被控參與2021年1月6日襲擊美國國會大廈的特朗普支持者，但特朗普的刑事案件卻佔據主導地位。四項重罪中的兩項指控他違反了同一項阻礙法；一項指控他違反了該法，另一項指控他串謀犯罪。

他的律師對這些指控提出了挑戰，這些指控在他與特別檢察官傑克·史密斯就他是否因為當時是總統而享有豁免權而爭論期間一直擱置。

閲讀更多： 最高法院支持1月6日被告，限制恩隆法律的使用

星期五法院發佈意見後，特朗普在他的Truth Social平台上發帖“大勝利！”。史密斯辦公室的發言人並未立即回覆評論請求。

預計最高法院將在下週就免疫案件作出裁決。即使大法官們拒絕特朗普絕對免疫的主張，他們仍可能認為他在官方行為相關指控方面受到保護，並將其送回給美國地方法官塔尼婭·楚特坎進行另一輪訴訟。如果特朗普在免疫問題上失敗，楚特坎將審查此前擱置的對起訴書的其他挑戰。

在十月提交的文件中，特朗普的律師辯稱將妨礙法律應用於他在選舉後的行為“威脅將普通政治活動的廣泛範圍定罪。”

政府為法律的更廣泛解釋進行了辯護，依據一項與1月6日相關案件有關的聯邦上訴法院的裁決。然而，該裁決在星期五被最高法院撤銷。政府為法律的更廣泛解釋進行了辯護，依據一項與1月6日相關案件有關的聯邦上訴法院的裁決。然而，該裁決在星期五被最高法院撤銷。

但檢察官還辯稱，這些指控應在更狹窄的範圍內存活，重點放在文件和證據上，因為這些指控涉及與國會選舉認證有關的文件。

週五加入羅伯茨多數意見的賈克遜大法官在一份附帶意見中寫道，法院為檢察官繼續追究1月6日襲擊事件被告的妨礙指控留下了餘地。她寫道，被告參與國會大廈襲擊“可能涉及損害（或試圖損害）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.