The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday concerning obstruction of justice charges in cases related to the January 6 riots at the US Capitol building in 2021.

Several justices, including the court’s conservative bloc, expressed skepticism with the government’s broad reading of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), the statute used to charge the alleged rioters. The court’s liberal wing, however, appeared to be in lockstep with interpreting the statute to include the actions taken during the Jan. 6 riots.

The statute, which was part of the Corporate Fraud and Accountability Act of 2002, was originally passed after the Enron scandal to create a crime for individuals intending to destroy or attempt to destroy documents or other evidence so they could not be used in an “official proceeding.”

Historically, the law has been mostly used to prosecute individuals who were destroying evidence so it could not be used in court. However, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who is representing the government in the case, argued that the statute has been used to charge individuals who have more generally impeded proceedings as well. Prelogar pointed to a case where the offending party exposed an undercover officer’s identity and another case where a party revealed a grand jury investigation to the subject of that investigation.

Much of the arguments centered around the second part of § 1512(c), which holds a violator liable for conduct that “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so …” Specifically, the court focused on the word “otherwise” and whether it included general conduct that obstructs an “official proceeding,” an interpretation the government argued supported their decision to bring the charges.

Justice Roberts on the other hand seemed to indicate reservations with this interpretation, insisting that the second section of the law could not be read without importing the language from the first section that specifically outlawed obstruction through the destruction of tangible things like “record[s], document[s], or other object[s].” Jeffrey T. Green,  lawyer for petitioner Joseph Fischer, argued that this was the proper construction of the statute in that the second section was only meant to outlaw other conduct that pertained to the types of evidence in the first section.

350 people who participated in the Jan. 6 riots were charged under § 1512(c) including former President Donald Trump, whose legal team will argue a presidential immunity defense against these charges and others before the US Supreme Court next week. Should the Supreme Court decide this case in favor of Fischer, dozens of riot participants stand to gain new trials or resentencing.