Written by Michael Barrett.

Despite a clear ruling from the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice is pressing forward with obstruction charges against Don and Shawndale Chilcoat, related to the events of January 6. In June, the Supreme Court had ruled that prosecutors could only pursue obstruction charges if they could prove that the defendants interfered with specific documents or evidence used in an official proceeding.

Previously, prosecutors had broadly interpreted the law, claiming that merely disrupting the certification of the 2020 election constituted obstruction. This interpretation led to charges against approximately 259 individuals, each facing a potential 20-year prison sentence. However, following the Supreme Court’s decision, the DOJ began to drop charges for many of those individuals.

Now, the DOJ is doubling down in the case of the Chilcoats, arguing that their actions on January 6 warrant a trial. According to court documents, the couple faces multiple charges, including obstruction of an official proceeding, disorderly conduct, and trespassing in the Capitol building. The DOJ insists it has enough evidence to secure a conviction, despite the Supreme Court’s ruling.

DOJ’s Argument for a Conviction

In their filings, prosecutors argued that the Chilcoats’ conduct on January 6 demonstrated a clear intent to invade and occupy the Capitol, aiming to halt the certification of the Electoral College vote. The DOJ is sticking to its guns, arguing that the Chilcoats knew the proceeding involved crucial documents—namely, the electoral votes Congress was set to certify.

“The government understands that the Court wants to have confidence that the facts here give rise to a triable case,” prosecutors wrote in a motion to U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. They emphasized the defendants’ awareness of the records involved and their actions to disrupt the process.

The Chilcoats are now likely to face trial in 2025, as the DOJ pushes forward, despite the Supreme Court’s attempt to narrow the scope of obstruction charges.

Our Take

The DOJ’s decision to continue with obstruction charges against the Chilcoats, despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, is troubling. It seems like a blatant disregard for the judiciary’s authority and a dangerous precedent. If the DOJ can ignore the highest court in the land, what does that mean for the rule of law? This kind of overreach by the government should concern every citizen who values justice and fair treatment under the law. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for how future prosecutions are handled, especially in politically charged situations.