Yes, but that was originally written to punish evidence tampering. The Jan 6th trials were the first time it was applied to protests, and that use is so novel that the Supreme Court has agreed to review it.[1]
And the "corruptly" term was effectively eliminated by UNITED STATES v. ROBERTSON (2023)[2], when the appeals court ruled that it means simply “acting ‘with consciousness of wrongdoing.’” (mens rea) and with “independently unlawful means or purpose”.
Almost all disruptive protests involve some minor "independently unlawful means" (such as jaywalking, trespassing, disorderly conduct, or failure to comply with a police officer), so they fit that definition.
The court's example to illustrate the meaning of the term was: "a witness in a court proceeding may refuse to testify by invoking his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, thereby obstructing or impeding the proceeding, but he does not act corruptly".
The court actually said that taking the fifth is obstructing an official proceeding (but not corruptly).
Imagine how little it takes to commit a felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison now. Have you seen the movie "The Trial of the Chicago 7"? If that happened today, not only could they be convicted of "corruptly" disrupting an official proceeding for the protests, they could be convicted for their behavior during the trial. (In the latter case, the independently unlawful means would be behavior that was in contempt of court)
PS: I should add that the 20 years comes from a different law with the same phrasing, 18 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant, section (c)(2). The existence of two laws with the same phrasing, both for specific crimes (evidence tampering and witness tampering), makes it clear that the legislature didn't intend for these laws to apply broadly.
And the "corruptly" term was effectively eliminated by UNITED STATES v. ROBERTSON (2023)[2], when the appeals court ruled that it means simply “acting ‘with consciousness of wrongdoing.’” (mens rea) and with “independently unlawful means or purpose”.
Almost all disruptive protests involve some minor "independently unlawful means" (such as jaywalking, trespassing, disorderly conduct, or failure to comply with a police officer), so they fit that definition.
The court's example to illustrate the meaning of the term was: "a witness in a court proceeding may refuse to testify by invoking his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, thereby obstructing or impeding the proceeding, but he does not act corruptly".
The court actually said that taking the fifth is obstructing an official proceeding (but not corruptly).
Imagine how little it takes to commit a felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison now. Have you seen the movie "The Trial of the Chicago 7"? If that happened today, not only could they be convicted of "corruptly" disrupting an official proceeding for the protests, they could be convicted for their behavior during the trial. (In the latter case, the independently unlawful means would be behavior that was in contempt of court)
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer_v._United_States
2: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dc-circuit/115332314.ht...
PS: I should add that the 20 years comes from a different law with the same phrasing, 18 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant, section (c)(2). The existence of two laws with the same phrasing, both for specific crimes (evidence tampering and witness tampering), makes it clear that the legislature didn't intend for these laws to apply broadly.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512#c_2