Legal experts said the Biden administration was "on the ropes" in Tuesday’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
Jonathan Turley, a practicing criminal defense attorney and professor at George Washington University, praised Solicitor General Elizabeth Preloger as one of "the best appellate litigators," but said she appeared "clearly on the ropes" and "made some uncharacteristic concessions" on Tuesday.
At one point, Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned whether, under the government’s argument, heckling at the State of the Union address or the recent incident of Rep. Jaamal Bowman, D-N.Y. pulling a fire alarm and diverting a House vote would constitute "obstruction."
"There are multiple elements of the statue that I think might not be satisfied by those hypotheticals," Preloger replied, adding that obstruction requires "meaningful interference" and "corrupt intent."
A scene from the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol in 2021. (AP Photo/Julio Cortez, File)
"I’m a big believer in the rule of lenity. That basically means criminal statutes should be construed narrowly and when in doubt, you err on the side of the individual and not just throw stuff against the wall," he said.
Chief Justice John Roberts pressed Preloger about an opinion issued in 2019 by DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) – an office that serves as a legal adviser to the department and other executive agencies –which said that the obstruction statute should be viewed narrowly and contradicts DOJ’s position in Tuesday’s case.
Preloger said that opinion was never "formally" adopted, but couldn’t say what the DOJ’s process to formerly accept an OLC paper is.
"It was not a good moment, or a good look for the government," Turley said.
"There were a lot of shrugs coming from the government in this oral argument. I mean, time and time again, when pushed to the wall, the government would simply shrug off the contradiction. That's not going to work with these justices," Turley added.
Chief Justice John Roberts attends the State of the Union address. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
Turley said that, should the justices decide the case in favor of the Jan. 6 defendant, it could mean that Special Counsel Jack Smith’s drops the two obstruction counts against Trump.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
"The obstruction counts allowed Smith to frame the President's remarks in a conspiracy to obstruct and prevent the counting of votes. The elimination of those counts makes the narrative more challenging for Smith because those two counts were emblematic of his narrative," Turley noted.
"That is, they specifically alleged an effort to obstruct the proceeding. Those two counts amplified that aspect of the government's theory."
A decision in the case, Fischer v. United States, is expected in early summer.
Brianna Herlihy is a politics writer for Fox News Digital.
Get the latest updates from the 2024 campaign trail, exclusive interviews and more Fox News politics content.
Subscribed
You've successfully subscribed to this newsletter!
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/legal-experts-say-biden-admins-legal-theory-jan-6-prosecution-ropes-supreme-court-argument