According to a filing on Wednesday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) plans to move forward with obstruction charges against two of the defendants in the Jan. 6 assault after the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of the foundational statute.

Prosecutors argue that the actions of Ohio couple Don and Shawndale Chilcote meet the strict standards set out in the Fisher v. U.S. Supreme Court decision, and this appears to be the first time prosecutors have moved forward with charges after a conviction. According to A report from Politico: A few weeks after the ruling, the Department of Justice requested more time to assess the impact of the ruling on some cases, while emphasizing that the Supreme Court had not rejected the law entirely.

The Department of Justice has prosecuted hundreds of defendants under Section 1512(c)(2), which provides for up to 20 years in prison for anyone who corruptly “obstructs, influences, or impedes an official proceeding.” The Supreme Court ruled in June that the Department of Justice had interpreted the law too broadly, explaining that the government must prove that a defendant actually obstructed or attempted to obstruct access to physical evidence. (Related story: Biden Justice Department seeks to salvage Jan. 6 indictments after major blow at Supreme Court)

Prosecutors allege that the Chilcoats intended to block the certification of the electoral votes and “knew that the process involved records, documents and other things, specifically the electoral votes that Congress would consider.” Shawndale Chilcoat said on January 7, 2021, that they “simply sought to block the certification of the votes and did not know that the votes were already gone.” According to In the submitted documents.

“From this evidence, a jury could credibly infer that Shawndale Chilcoat attempted to obstruct the availability of electoral votes for Congress to consider,” the prosecutors wrote. “A jury could also infer, based on the defendants' joint actions and relationship, that Donald Chilcoat did the same.”

The prosecution included proposed jury instructions in its filing informing jurors of the limitations of Section 1512(c)(2), which it noted were “different from previous jury instructions, which did not focus on damaging the integrity or rendering unavailable records, documents or other items used in a formal proceeding.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred. Suggested Prosecutions could move forward if they “involve a breach (or attempted breach) of the availability or integrity of anything used during the January 6 proceedings.”

As an independent, nonpartisan news service, all content produced by the Daily Caller News Foundation is available free of charge to any legitimate news publisher with a large readership. All republished articles must include our logo, reporter byline, and affiliation with the DCNF. If you have any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact us at licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.