Equally interesting is the SCOTUS’ April 15th opinion denying cert in a case involving a lawsuit against the leader of a BLM riot in Louisiana that resulted in a serious injury to a police officer: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-373_8njq.pdf.
Sotomayor, writing for the Court, sent a message to the the courts below that based upon Counterman v. Colorado, 600
U. S. 66 (2023), “the First Amendment precludes punishment [for incitement], whether civil or criminal, unless the
speaker’s words were ‘intended’ (not just likely) to produce
imminent disorder.”
I also read this as a warning to the DOJ and the judge assigned to the Trump J6 trial, that the DOJ must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump actually intended to incite protesters to enter the Capital for the purpose of disrupting official proceedings concerning the 2020 election.
Thus, even if the SCOTUS agrees with the DOJ’s reading of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), the charges may not survive a 1st Amendment Challenge.
Jack Smith says even if SCOTUS rules for the J6ers, Trump still would be charged with obstruction because of "false electors." I don't think this is the first time in history competing electors have arisen, but SCOTUS doesn't always follow reason.