The Supreme Court appeared incredibly skeptical of how a law has been used to charge hundreds of participants in the attack on Jan. 6, 2021, in arguments on Tuesday.

The case came to the court from a challenge brought by Joseph Fischer, who was among the mob that stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6. Among other charges, he was accused of violating a provision in a 2002 accounting reform law that prohibits anyone who corruptly obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.

But in his challenge, Fischer argued that the law was not meant to apply to situations like the Jan. 6 insurrection. The Department of Justice has already charged at least 330 participants in the attack, including former President Donald Trump , with violating this provision.

If the court rules in favor of Fischer, it would likely lead to the dismissal of this charge from his case, as well as its dismissal for hundreds of other defendants including Trump. That charge against Trump was brought by special counsel Jack Smith as part of a four-count indictment for alleged crimes committed in pursuit of overturning the 2020 election.

During arguments, the courts conservative justices appeared hostile to the use of this provision in the context of Jan. 6, suggesting that the governments interpretation of the provision was overly broad. Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also seemed to question whether the governments theory about how to apply this provision could criminalize other activity, like protests and disturbances, that were not as violent or disruptive as the insurrection.

The arguments hinged on how to interpret the provision, officially known as 1512(c)(2), of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Passed in the wake of the Enron and Arthur Andersen accounting scandals, the law sought to close numerous loopholes and gaps in obstruction codes that protected the destruction or alteration of documents, particularly regarding financial fraud.