The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in June of 2024 that the charge only applied when the defendant "impaired the availability or integrity" (attempted or successfully) of a physical document or object used in an official proceeding.

The court rejected this argument in a subsequent January 6 related case, United States v. Robertson,[7] holding that "corruptly" in this context means acting with criminal intent, without an additional requirement of personal gain.

[3] Multiple federal judges have delayed cases or released defendants charged with obstruction of an official proceeding pending the Supreme Court's ruling.

[12] Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, saying that the government must establish that a defendant "impaired the availability or integrity" of records, documents, or other objects used in an official proceeding.

Roberts noted that "there would have been scant reason for Congress to provide any specific examples at all" if the obstruction proceeding could be applied so sweepingly on its own.

[13][14] In a concurring opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that it "beggars belief that Congress would have inserted a breathtakingly broad, first-of-its kind criminal obstruction statute (accompanied by a substantial 20-year maximum penalty) in the midst of a significantly more granular series of obstruction prohibitions without clarifying its intent to do so".

[17][18] This includes at least some of the charges against prominent defendants such as Guy Reffitt, Stewart Rhodes, Enrique Tarrio, and Jacob Chansley.

[20] Special counsel Jack Smith has said that Trump's efforts to use false electoral certificates allowed the charges to remain under a ruling in favor of Fischer.