In Fischer, 144 S. Ct. at 2185, this Supreme Court focused on what conduct was prohibited by the "otherwise" clause in 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) and emphasized that its broad language is cabined by the narrow terms that precede it in § 1512(c)(1). Here, the question presented is whether the lower courts construed the two subsections independently, applying the statute exactly backwards -- in Mr. Dillon's case?

Whether the lower courts improperly construed 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) by applying its subsections independently contrary to Supreme Court precedent in Fischer