The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday challenging an obstruction charge faced by a defendant in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.

If the challenge succeeds, it could wipe out the charge for hundreds of other defendants, including former President Donald Trump.

Some conservative justices seemed skeptical of the government’s interpretation of a provision in the law in question, expressing concern that it could be used to severely punish people for peaceful protests. 

The provision is included in a 2002 law, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, enacted following the collapse of the energy company Enron, a scandal that saw the widespread destruction of documents.

The first part of the provision makes it illegal for someone to corruptly alter, destroy or conceal a record or document with the intent of preventing it from being used in an official proceeding. The second part references someone who “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.”

The case was brought by Joseph Fischer, a former Pennsylvania police officer who has been indicted on seven charges, including obstruction of an official proceeding. About 350 Jan. 6 defendants have been charged with obstruction, according to the Justice Department.

The case being argued Tuesday hinges on the interpretation of the word “otherwise” in the law.

Fischer’s attorney, Jeffrey Green, argued it implies “similar conduct” and should only apply to acts involving physical evidence.

“The Jan. 6 prosecutions demonstrate that there are a host of felony and misdemeanor crimes that cover the alleged conduct,” Greene said. “A Sarbanes-Oxley-based, Enron-driven evidence tampering statute is not one of them.”

The Justice Department said “otherwise” means “in a different manner” and was included in the statute as a “classic catch-all.”

“The case that comes to this court presents a straightforward question of statutory interpretation,” said U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, arguing for the Justice Department. “Did petitioner obstruct, influence or impede the joint session of Congress? The answer is equally straightforward: Yes, he obstructed that official proceeding. The terms of the statute unambiguously encompasses conduct.”

Conservative justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch seemed concerned that the government’s broader reading of the law, which carries up to 20 years in prison, could have a chilling effect on traditional forms of protests that technically impede an official proceeding. 

“Would a sit-in that disrupts a trial or access to a federal courthouse qualify?” Gorsuch asked. “Would a heckler in today's audience qualify or at the State of the Union address? Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify for 20 years in federal prison?”

“We need to find out what are the outer reaches of this statute under your interpretation,” Alito told Prelogar.

Alito used as an example the pro-Palestinian protest Monday on the Golden Gate Bridge that blocked traffic. He asked whether a similar protest around Washington, D.C., prevented or delayed members of the government from attending hearings would violate the provision.

Prelogar said the charge requires evidence of a link between the protest and the intent to obstruct a proceeding. She argued that the government has judiciously brought the count, noting it has been filed against about a quarter of the 1,350 people charged in connection with the Jan. 6 riot.

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor appeared to side with the Justice Department’s interpretation of the law and use of the word “otherwise.”

“There is a sign on the theater: ‘You will be kicked out of the theater if you photograph or record the actors or otherwise disrupt the performance.’ If you start yelling, I think no one would question that you can be expected to be kicked out under this policy, even though yelling has nothing to do with photograph or recording,” she said. 

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was nominated by Trump, a Republican, asked if the first part of the statute alone could still apply to Jan. 6 defendants because they allegedly attempted to obstruct “the certificates arriving to the vice president's desk for counting.”

Green argued it could not.

“Attempting to stop a vote count or something like that is a very different act than actually changing a document or altering a document or creating a fake new document,” Green argued.

Two of the four charges Trump was indicted for in a Washington case brought by special counsel Jack Smith relate to obstructing an official proceeding. The former president has pleaded not guilty. 

If the Supreme Court rules in Fischer’s favor, Trump’s lawyers may seek to have the obstructions charges tossed out. But Smith’s team argued in a brief earlier this month that Trump’s case is different than the other Jan. 6 defendants because it involves documents falsely claiming Trump won the 2020 presidential election in several states.

Trump is also charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy against rights in the case in that case. And he faces three other criminal indictments in Florida, Georgia and New York.

Green also argued the Justice Department has never used the provision of the law to prosecute anyone for anything other than evidence tampering, a point on which conservative justices pressed Prelogar. 

The solicitor general insisted it has been enforced “in a variety of prosecutions that don't focus on evidence to.”

“I can't give you an example of enforcing it in a situation where people have violently stormed a building in order to prevent an official proceeding … because I'm not aware of that circumstance ever happening prior to Jan. 6,” she added.

Roughly 170 Jan. 6 defendants have been convicted of obstructing or conspiring to obstruct the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress, including the leaders of two far-right extremist groups, the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. A number of defendants have had their sentencings delayed until after the justices rule on the matter.

Some rioters have even won early release from prison while the appeal is pending over concerns that they might end up serving longer than they should have if the Supreme Court rules against the Justice Department. 

Most lower court judges who have weighed in have allowed the charge to stand. Among them, U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, a Trump appointee, wrote that "statutes often reach beyond the principal evil that animated them."

But U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, another Trump appointee, dismissed the charge against Fischer and two other defendants, writing that prosecutors went too far. A divided panel of the federal appeals court in Washington reinstated the charge before the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case.

Fischer is also charged with civil disorder; assaulting, resisting ir impeding certain officers; entering and remaining ina  restricted area; disorderly conduct; and parading, demonstrating or picketing in a Capitol building. He has pleaded not guilty.

Next week, the justices will hear arguments over whether Trump has "absolute immunity" from prosecution in the case, a proposition that has so far been rejected by two lower courts.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.