SCOTUS Justice Neil Gorsuch draws comparison between Jan. 6 rioters and Rep. Jamaal Bowman pulling a fire alarm.

So, what does that mean for the breadth of this statute? Would a sit-in that disrupts a trial or access to a federal courthouse qualify? 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? There are multiple elements of the statute that I think might not be satisfied by those hypotheticals, and it relates to the point I was going to make to the Chief Justice about the breadth of this statute. The kind of built-in limitations or the things that I think would potentially suggest that many of those things wouldn't be something the government could charge or prove as 1512c2 beyond a reasonable doubt would include the fact that the actus reus does require obstruction, which we understand to be a meaningful interference. So that means that if you have some minor disruption or delay or some minimal outbursts, we don't think it falls within the actus reus to begin with. My outbursts require the court to reconvene after the proceeding has been brought back into line, or the pulling of the fire alarm, the vote has to be rescheduled, or the protest outside of a courthouse makes it inaccessible for a period of time. Are those all federal felonies subject to 20 years in prison? So with some of them, it would be necessary to show nexus. So with respect to the protest outside the courthouse, we'd have to show that, yes, they were aiming at a proceeding. I think I've shown, yeah, they were trying to stop the proceeding. Yes. And then we'd also have to be able to prove that they acted corruptly, and this sets a stringent mens rea. It's not even just the mere intent to obstruct. We have to show that also, but we have to show that they had corrupt intent in acting in that way. You went around that tree yesterday. I know. I heard the argument yesterday. But I guess what I would say is that to the extent that your hypotheticals are pressing on the idea of a peaceful protest, even one that's quite disruptive, it's not clear to me that the government would be able to show that each of those protesters had corrupt intent. So mostly peaceful protests that actually obstructs and impedes an official proceeding for an indefinite period would not be covered? Not necessarily. We would just have to have the evidence of intent, and that's a hypothetical argument. They intend to do it all right.