How early do you have to be there to get a seat?

Because I am what's known as a hard pass holder.

The hardcore.

Yes, right. Right.

I mean, I'll just get there early around nine just because I'll want to see the atmosphere and all that.

As the world watches Donald Trump in criminal court in Manhattan, back in Washington, a Supreme Court case is humming along at a much lower frequency.

I mean, honestly, practically off the radar.

But it has the potential to upend charges for hundreds of January 6 defendants, including the former president.

This is the assignment. I'm Audie Cornish, and I'm here with Joan Biscupik, senior Supreme Court analyst.

Hey there, Joan.

Good to see you.

Of course, author of the book, Nine Black Robs, which I have read and is out now on paperback.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

All right, so I'm going to try and do what we call the nut graph in journalism, the basics of this case. So once upon a time, there was a former police officer from Pennsylvania. His name was Joseph Fisher. And he decided to go to the January 6th protests, which of course turned into a riot, siege, whatever term people are using

at this point. And prosecutors charged him with assaulting a police officer, disorderly conduct,

and this is the thing we're going to be talking about today, obstruction of a congressional

proceeding. So, why was this particular charge used? It sounds very obvious,

but talk to me about this obstruction of a proceeding. Yes. This charge dates to a 2002 law

that was passed in the wake of the Enron accounting scandal.

The Justice Department that charged Joseph Fisher felt like it needed to use this particular

statute to fully hold him accountable for what he did that day that specifically went to

...