Special Counsel Jack Smith could suffer a disastrous defeat this week after his case against former President Donald Trump was put in danger.

Reports suggest the Supreme Court is set to weigh in on a case that could impact hundreds of cases connected to the January 6 Capitol protests, including Smith’s case against Trump. According to the Daily Caller, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Fischer v. United States case on Tuesday.

Joseph Fischer, one of the January 6 defendants, brought the case arguing that the government’s application of an obstruction statute —Section 1512(c)(2)— is an unprecedented expansion of the statutes.

“Before the January 6 cases, no court had applied Section 1512(c)(2) to conduct not intended to affect the availability or integrity of evidence,” Fischer’s attorneys argued in a brief. “Nor had a defendant ever been convicted of an obstruction-of-Congress offense outside the context of a legislative inquiry or investigation.”

The statute was originally used to prosecute anyone who corruptly obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding. The statute also comes with a penalty of up to 20 years in prison.

The law was enacted in 2002 as part of the Corporate Fraud and Accountability Act. Fisher argued that it was intended to deter corporate executives’ fraud and check evidence tampering.

The Justice Department is, however, adamant that the text of the law is not limited to conduct that affects the integrity or availability of evidence.

“Instead, Congress adopted a traditional catchall clause, reaching all forms of corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding,” the DOJ wrote in a brief.

Two judges already sided with the DOJ when Fischer first filed the case with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

“Under the most natural reading of the statute, §1512(c)(2) applies to all forms of corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding,” Judge Florence Pan, a Biden appointee, wrote in the majority opinion from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

However, Judge Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee, disagreed with both judges in the 2-1 ruling. Katsas wrote that the government was mistaken in its interpretation, adding that the DOJ made the statute implausibly broad and unconstitutional in several applications.

“Among other things, that construction would sweep in advocacy, lobbying, and protest—common mechanisms by which citizens attempt to influence official proceedings,” Katsas wrote. “Historically, these activities did not constitute obstruction unless they directly impinged on a proceeding’s truth-seeking function through acts such as bribing a decisionmaker or falsifying evidence presented to it.”

The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Tuesday. Should SCOTUS rule in Fischer’s favor, many January 6 cases could be thrown out, including Trump’s.