jaunt meaning easy

• Dictionaries home
• American English
• Collocations
• German-English
• Grammar home
• Practical English Usage
• Learn & Practise Grammar (Beta)
• Word Lists home
• My Word Lists
• Recent additions
• Resources home
• Text Checker

Definition of jaunt noun from the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary

Definitions on the go

Look up any word in the dictionary offline, anytime, anywhere with the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary app.

Nearby words

• Daily Crossword
• Word Puzzle
• Word Finder
• Word of the Day
• Synonym of the Day
• Word of the Year
• Language stories
• All featured
• Gender and sexuality
• All pop culture
• Grammar Coach ™
• Writing hub
• Grammar essentials
• Commonly confused
• All writing tips
• Pop culture
• Writing tips

Did you mean haunting ?

• 1.1 Etymology
• 1.2 Pronunciation
• 1.3.1 Translations
• 1.4.1 Derived terms
• 1.4.2 Translations
• 1.5 References
• 1.6 Anagrams

English [ edit ]

Etymology [ edit ].

Origin uncertain. Perhaps a palatalised alteration of daunt ( “ to discourage ” ) . Compare Scots jaunder ( “ to ramble, jaunt to taunt, jeer ” ) , dialectal Swedish ganta ( “ to play the buffoon, romp, jest ” ) ; perhaps akin to English jump . Compare jaunce . Modern usage likely influenced by jaunty .

Pronunciation [ edit ]

• IPA ( key ) : /ˈd͡ʒɔːnt/
• ( some accents ) IPA ( key ) : /ˈdʒɑːnt/
• Rhymes: -ɔːnt , -ɑːnt

Noun [ edit ]

jaunt ( plural jaunts )

• 1671 , John Milton , “The Fourth Book”, in Paradise Regain’d. A Poem. In IV Books. To which is Added, Samson Agonistes , London: [ … ] J. M [ acock ] for John Starkey   [ … ] , →OCLC : Our Savior, meek, and with untroubled mind After his aëry jaunt , though hurried sore. Hungry and cold, betook him to his rest.
• 1597 , William Shakespeare , Romeo & Juliet : Fie, what a jaunt have I had.
• 1902 , John Buchan, The Outgoing of the Tide : Some days later it happened that young Heriotside was stepping home over the Lang Muir about ten at night, it being his first jaunt from home since his arm had mended.

Translations [ edit ]

Verb [ edit ].

jaunt ( third-person singular simple present jaunts , present participle jaunting , simple past and past participle jaunted )

• ( intransitive ) To ramble here and there; to stroll ; to make an excursion .
• ( intransitive ) To ride on a jaunting car .
• 1818 , Cobbett's Weekly Political Register : To get into a Grecian car, and to be drawn, with Minerva at his back [ … ] four or five miles through the streets of London‥after having quietly suffered himself to be jaunted about in this manner
• ( obsolete ) To tire a horse by riding it hard or back and forth.

Derived terms [ edit ]

• jaunting car

References [ edit ]

Anagrams [ edit ].

• jantu , junta

• English terms with unknown etymologies
• English 1-syllable words
• English terms with IPA pronunciation
• English terms with audio links
• Rhymes:English/ɔːnt
• Rhymes:English/ɔːnt/1 syllable
• Rhymes:English/ɑːnt
• English lemmas
• English nouns
• English countable nouns
• English terms with archaic senses
• English terms with quotations
• English verbs
• English intransitive verbs
• English transitive verbs
• English terms with obsolete senses
• Quotation templates to be cleaned

Navigation menu

Dictionary definition of jaunt

A short trip or excursion, usually for pleasure or leisure, often implying a sense of casualness or informality. "The romantic jaunt to the city was the perfect getaway for the couple."

Detailed meaning of jaunt

The term is often used to describe a quick trip or outing that is taken for fun, rather than for a specific purpose. For example, a weekend jaunt to the countryside, or a day jaunt to a nearby city. A jaunt can also imply a sense of adventure or spontaneity, as it suggests a trip that is taken on a whim or without much planning. The term is often used in contrast to a more formal or structured trip, such as a vacation or business trip. Jaunt also implies a sense of brevity, it's a short and usually pleasant trip, usually it's not a long term commitment. In general, a jaunt is a short and casual trip, usually taken for pleasure or leisure, that implies a sense of adventure and spontaneity.

Example sentences of jaunt

1. We took a leisurely jaunt through the picturesque countryside. 2. The couple embarked on a romantic jaunt along the coastline. 3. The weekend jaunt to the mountains was filled with breathtaking views. 4. She went on a solo jaunt to explore the bustling city streets. 5. The group organized a spontaneous jaunt to a nearby vineyard. 6. The family enjoyed a refreshing jaunt through the lush forest trails.

History and etymology of jaunt

The noun 'jaunt' has its etymological roots in the Middle French word 'jent,' which meant 'a day's journey' or 'a day's work.' This Middle French term, in turn, can be traced back to the Old French word 'journée,' meaning 'day' and, by extension, 'a day's travel or excursion.' The transition from 'journée' to 'jent' in Middle French reflected the linguistic shifts of the time. In English, 'jaunt' emerged during the 17th century, retaining its essence as a short trip or excursion, often for pleasure or leisure, with a connotation of informality and casualness. This etymology underscores the historical association of 'jaunt' with the idea of a brief journey or day's outing.

Find the meaning of jaunt

Continue Quiz

Further usage examples of jaunt

1. They decided to go on a jaunt to discover hidden gems in the city. 2. The jaunt to the amusement park was filled with laughter and excitement. 3. He took a short jaunt during his lunch break to clear his mind. 4. The friends planned a jaunt to visit historical landmarks in the area. 5. The jaunt to the beach included a relaxing picnic by the shore. 6. She went on a shopping jaunt, visiting various boutiques and shops. 7. The jaunt through the old town gave them a glimpse into the city's rich history. 8. They embarked on a culinary jaunt, trying out different restaurants in the neighborhood. 9. The weekend jaunt to the cabin allowed them to reconnect with nature. 10. The hiking enthusiasts organized a challenging jaunt up the mountain. 11. The spontaneous jaunt to the concert turned out to be a memorable experience. 12. She decided to take a jaunt to the bookstore to find a new novel to read. 13. The jaunt to the art gallery showcased a diverse collection of masterpieces. 14. They planned a jaunt to the countryside to witness the beauty of the changing seasons.

Quiz categories containing jaunt

Multiple Choice

Opposite Words

Same/different

Spelling Bee

awayday,detour,journey,outing,stroll,tour,trek

eb68db_91e59938480545b2903d58d1b24dc0e4.mp3

outing, residency, stay, inhabitancy

amble,expedition,frolic,junket,ramble

Synonyms of jaunt

• as in excursion
• as in to trek
• More from M-W
• To save this word, you'll need to log in. Log In

Thesaurus Definition of jaunt

 (Entry 1 of 2)

Synonyms & Similar Words

• peregrination

Thesaurus Definition of jaunt  (Entry 2 of 2)

• knock (about)
• road - trip
• perambulate
• peregrinate

Articles Related to jaunt

8 Ways to Get Away From It All

Whether it's a jaunt or a junket, remember sunblock.

Thesaurus Entries Near jaunt

Cite this entry.

“Jaunt.” Merriam-Webster.com Thesaurus , Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/jaunt. Accessed 27 Apr. 2024.

More from Merriam-Webster on jaunt

Nglish: Translation of jaunt for Spanish Speakers

Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free!

Can you solve 4 words at once?

Word of the day.

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Popular in Grammar & Usage

More commonly misspelled words, commonly misspelled words, how to use em dashes (—), en dashes (–) , and hyphens (-), absent letters that are heard anyway, how to use accents and diacritical marks, popular in wordplay, the words of the week - apr. 26, 9 superb owl words, 'gaslighting,' 'woke,' 'democracy,' and other top lookups, 10 words for lesser-known games and sports, your favorite band is in the dictionary, games & quizzes.

Examples of 'jaunt' in a sentence

Examples from collins dictionaries, examples from the collins corpus.

Quick word challenge

Quiz Review

Score: 0 / 5

All ENGLISH words that begin with 'J'

Words and phrases

Personal account.

• Access or purchase personal subscriptions
• Get our newsletter
• Save searches
• Set display preferences

Institutional access

Sign in with library card

Sign in with username / password

Recommend to your librarian

Institutional account management

Sign in as administrator on Oxford Academic

† jaunt noun 2

• Hide all quotations

What does the noun jaunt mean?

There is one meaning in OED's entry for the noun jaunt . See ‘Meaning & use’ for definition, usage, and quotation evidence.

This word is now obsolete. It is only recorded in the early 1700s.

Entry status

OED is undergoing a continuous programme of revision to modernize and improve definitions. This entry has not yet been fully revised.

Where does the noun jaunt come from?

Earliest known use

early 1700s

The only known use of the noun jaunt is in the early 1700s.

OED's earliest evidence for jaunt is from 1706, in Phillips's New World of Words .

jaunt is a borrowing from French.

Etymons: French jante .

Nearby entries

• jaundiced, adj. 1640–
• jaune, adj. 1430–
• jaune antique, n. 1875–
• jaune brillant, n. 1851–
• Jaune Desprez, n. 1837–
• jaune jonquille, n. 1910–
• jaunette, n. 1423–1673
• jaunish | jawnish, adj. 1597
• jaunsel, v. 1590
• jaunt, n.¹ 1597–
• jaunt, n.² 1706–21
• jaunt, v. 1570–
• jauntily, adv. 1828–
• jauntiness, n. 1712–
• jaunting-car, n. 1805–
• jauntingly, adv. 1839–
• jaunty, n. 1902–
• jaunty, adj. 1662–
• jaup | jawp, n. 1513–
• jaup | jawp, v. 1513–
• Java, n. 1743–

Thank you for visiting Oxford English Dictionary

To continue reading, please sign in below or purchase a subscription. After purchasing, please sign in below to access the content.

Meaning & use

Entry history for jaunt, n.².

jaunt, n.² was first published in 1900; not yet revised.

jaunt, n.² was last modified in September 2023.

Revision of the OED is a long-term project. Entries in oed.com which have not been revised may include:

• corrections and revisions to definitions, pronunciation, etymology, headwords, variant spellings, quotations, and dates;
• new senses, phrases, and quotations which have been added in subsequent print and online updates.

Revisions and additions of this kind were last incorporated into jaunt, n.² in September 2023.

Earlier versions of this entry were published in:

OED First Edition (1900)

• Find out more

OED Second Edition (1989)

• View jaunt, n.² in OED Second Edition

Please submit your feedback for jaunt, n.²

Please include your email address if you are happy to be contacted about your feedback. OUP will not use this email address for any other purpose.

Citation details

Factsheet for jaunt, n.², browse entry.

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

To pass Ukraine aid, ‘Reagan Republican’ leaders in Congress navigated a party transformed by Trump

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., walks to the chamber as the Senate prepares to advance the $95 billion aid package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan passed by the House, at the Capitol in Washington, Tuesday, April 23, 2024. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., talks to reporters just after the House voted to approve $95 billion in foreign aid for Ukraine, Israel and other U.S. allies, at the Capitol in Washington, Saturday, April 20, 2024. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., praises support for Ukraine as the Senate is on track to pass $95 billion in war aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, at the Capitol in Washington, Tuesday, April 23, 2024. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

• Copy Link copied

WASHINGTON (AP) — For Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Mike Johnson, the necessity of providing Ukraine with weapons and other aid as it fends off Russia’s invasion is rooted in their earliest and most formative political memories.

McConnell, 82, tells the story of his father’s letters from Eastern Europe in 1945, at the end of World War II, when the foot soldier observed that the Russians were “going to be a big problem” before the communist takeover to come. Johnson, 30 years younger, came of age as the Cold War was ending.

As both men pushed their party this week to support a $95 billion aid package that sends support to Ukraine, as well as Israel, Taiwan and humanitarian missions, they labeled themselves “Reagan Republicans” an described the fight against Russian President Vladimir Putin in terms of U.S. strength and leadership. But the all-out effort to get the legislation through Congress left both of them grappling with an entirely new Republican Party shaped by former President Donald Trump.

While McConnell, R-Ky., and Johnson, R-La., took different approaches to handling Trump, the presumptive White House nominee in 2024, the struggle highlighted the fundamental battle within the GOP: Will conservatives continue their march toward Trump’s “America First” doctrine on foreign affairs or will they find the value in standing with America’s allies? And is the GOP still the party of Ronald Reagan?

“I think we’re having an internal debate about that,” McConnell said in an interview with The Associated Press. “I’m a Reagan guy and I think today — at least on this episode — we turned the tables on the isolationists.”

Still, he acknowledged, “that doesn’t mean they’re going to go away forever.”

McConnell, in the twilight of his 18-year tenure as Republican leader, lauded a momentary victory Tuesday as a healthy showing of 31 Republicans voted for the foreign aid; that was nine more than had supported it in February. He said that was a trend in the right direction.

McConnell, who has been in the Senate since 1985, said passing the legislation was “one of the most important things I’ve ever dealt with where I had an impact.”

But it wasn’t without cost.

He said last month he would step away from his job as leader next year after internal clashes over the money for Ukraine and the direction of the party.

For Johnson, just six months into his job as speaker, the political crosscurrents are even more difficult. He is clinging to his leadership post as right-wing Republicans threaten to oust him for putting the aid to Ukraine to a vote. While McConnell has embraced American leadership abroad his entire career, Johnson only recently gave complete support to the package.

Johnson has been careful not to portray passage as a triumph when a majority of his own House Republicans opposed the bill. He skipped a celebratory news conference afterward, describing it as “not a perfect piece of legislation” in brief remarks.

But he also borrowed terms popularized by Reagan, saying aggression from Russia, China and Iran “threatens the free world and it demands American leadership.”

“If we turn our backs right now, the consequences could be devastating,” he said.

Hard-line conservatives, including some who are threatening a snap vote on his leadership, are irate, saying the aid was vastly out of line with what Republican voters want. They condemned both Johnson and McConnell for supporting it.

“House Republican leadership sold out Americans and passed a bill that sends $95 billion to other countries,” said Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama, who opposed the bill. He said the legislation “undermines America’s interests abroad and paves our nation’s path to bankruptcy.”

Johnson has been lauded by much of Washington for doing what he called “the right thing” at a perilous moment for himself and the world.

“He is fundamentally an honorable person,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who brokered the negotiations and spent hours on the phone and in meetings with Johnson, McConnell and the White House.

Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, said Johnson and McConnell “both showed great resolve and backbone and true leadership at a time it was desperately needed.”

When McConnell began negotiations over President Joe Biden’s initial aid request last year, he quickly set the terms for a deal. He and Schumer agreed to pair any aid for Ukraine with help for Israel, Schumer said, and McConnell demanded policy changes at the U.S. border with Mexico.

On McConnell’s mind, he said, was that Trump was “unenthusiastic” about providing more aid to Kyiv. Yet McConnell, whose office displays a portrait of every Republican president since Reagan with the exception of Trump, had a virtually nonexistent relationship with the man he often refers to not by name, but simply as “the former president.”

Still, Trump would prove to hold powerful sway. When a deal on border security neared completion after months of work, Trump eviscerated the proposal as insufficient and a “gift” to Biden’s reelection. Conservatives, including Johnson, rejected it out of hand .

With the border deal dead, McConnell pushed ahead with Schumer on the foreign aid, with the border policies stripped out, solidifying their unusual alliance. The Senate leaders met weekly throughout the negotiation.

“We disagreed on a whole lot, but we really stuck together,” Schumer said.

“We just persisted. We could not give up on this.”

Meanwhile, a small group of GOP senators began working on an idea they thought could give Johnson some political wiggle room. Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Kevin Cramer of North Dakota and Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma took an idea that Trump had raised — structuring the aid to Ukraine as a loan — and tried to make it reality.

Through a series of phone calls with Trump, several House members, as well as the speaker, they worked to structure roughly $9 billion in economic aid for Ukraine as forgivable loans — just as it was in the final package.

“Our approach this time was to make sure that the politics were set, meaning that President Trump is on board,” Mullin said.

The conversations culminated in Johnson making a quick jaunt to Florida , where he stood side by side with Trump at his Florida club just days before moving ahead with the Ukraine legislation in the House.

It was all enough, with Democratic help, to get the bill across the finish line. The legislation, which Biden signed into law on Wednesday, included some revisions from the Senate bill, including the loan structure and a provision to seize frozen Russian central bank assets to rebuild Ukraine. Nine GOP senators who had opposed the first version of the bill swung to “yes” largely because of the changes Johnson had made.

The result was a strong showing for the foreign aid in the Senate, even though the decision could prove costly for Johnson.

What comes next on Ukraine is anyone’s guess.

While the $61 billion for Ukraine in the package is expected to help the country withstand Moscow’s offensive this year, more assistance will surely be needed. Republicans, exhausted after a grueling fight, largely shrugged off questions about the future.

“This one wasn’t easy,” Mullin said.

• Cambridge Dictionary +Plus

Examples of jaunt

Word of the Day

veterinary surgeon

Your browser doesn't support HTML5 audio

formal for vet

Dead ringers and peas in pods (Talking about similarities, Part 2)

Learn more with +Plus

• Recent and Recommended {{#preferredDictionaries}} {{name}} {{/preferredDictionaries}}
• Definitions Clear explanations of natural written and spoken English English Learner’s Dictionary Essential British English Essential American English
• Grammar and thesaurus Usage explanations of natural written and spoken English Grammar Thesaurus
• Pronunciation British and American pronunciations with audio English Pronunciation
• English–Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Simplified)–English
• English–Chinese (Traditional) Chinese (Traditional)–English
• English–Dutch Dutch–English
• English–French French–English
• English–German German–English
• English–Indonesian Indonesian–English
• English–Italian Italian–English
• English–Japanese Japanese–English
• English–Norwegian Norwegian–English
• English–Polish Polish–English
• English–Portuguese Portuguese–English
• English–Spanish Spanish–English
• English–Swedish Swedish–English
• Dictionary +Plus Word Lists

{{message}}

There was a problem sending your report.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

Why Is the Supreme Court Making an Easy Case Related to Jan. 6 Rioters Hard?

By Randall D. Eliason

Mr. Eliason is a former chief of the fraud and public corruption section at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia.

Imagine that during a Supreme Court argument, protesters angry about the case storm the court building. The mob breaks doors and windows and assaults security officers while forcing its way into the chamber. Some shout that they want to hang the chief justice. The justices and attorneys are forced to flee for their lives. It’s several hours before law enforcement secures the building and the argument can resume.

Has the court proceeding been obstructed or impeded? That doesn’t seem like a difficult question. But that’s essentially what the Supreme Court heard debated in arguments last week in Fischer v. United States , a case challenging a law being used to prosecute hundreds of people, including Donald Trump, for the events of Jan. 6, 2021.

Joseph Fischer is charged with being part of the mob that rioted at the Capitol, forcing members of Congress to flee and disrupting the electoral vote count. Along with assaulting police officers and other charges, he is charged under 18 U.S.C. 1512(c), which provides:

(c) Whoever corruptly — (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

Prosecutors charge that by participating in the Capitol riot, Mr. Fischer corruptly obstructed and impeded the joint congressional proceeding to certify the election, in violation of 1512(c)(2). More than 300 other Jan. 6 rioters have faced the same charge. In the D.C. federal indictment of Mr. Trump, two of the four counts also rely on this statute, alleging that through his actions leading up to and on Jan. 6, he conspired to and did obstruct the congressional proceeding.

Jan. 6 defendants have repeatedly challenged the use of 1512(c) in their prosecutions. More than a dozen federal judges in Washington have rejected those challenges. But in Mr. Fischer’s case, a Trump-appointed judge, Carl Nichols, concluded the statute must be limited to obstructive acts involving documents, records or other objects. Because Mr. Fischer wasn’t charged with impairing the availability or integrity of any physical evidence, Judge Nichols dismissed the charge.

Prosecutors appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed and reinstated the charge, with one judge — also a Trump appointee — dissenting. The Supreme Court is reviewing that decision.

The language of the statute seems clear. Subsection 1 prohibits obstructing a proceeding by tampering with physical evidence, and Subsection 2 is a catchall, backstop provision that prohibits “otherwise” obstructing a proceeding by means not encompassed by Subsection 1. Connected by the word “or,” they define alternative ways to violate the statute. You have to struggle pretty hard to find any ambiguity here.

As the majority in the D.C. Circuit held, that should be the end of the matter. In describing the D.C. Circuit dissent, Judge Florence Pan borrowed a line from an earlier Supreme Court case to say that it seemed like “elaborate efforts to avoid the most natural reading of the text.” After all, textualism — relying on the plain text of a statute and the common understanding of its terms — is the favored method of statutory interpretation today, especially among conservatives.

Despite the plain language of the law, Mr. Fischer and his supporters argue it should be limited based on the reason behind its passage. During the Enron scandal in the early 2000s, the prosecution of the accounting giant Arthur Andersen for shredding an enormous number of documents was hamstrung by weaknesses in the existing obstruction laws. Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002, which included section 1512(c), in response to that scandal. Mr. Fischer claims the statute must therefore be limited based on Congress’s intent to respond to crimes involving evidence impairment.

But as Justice Elena Kagan noted during oral arguments, that’s not what the statute says. As she also pointed out, Congress easily could have written the statute that way if that was what it meant.

Limiting the statute as Mr. Fischer proposes would lead to absurd outcomes. Members of a violent mob who shut down a proceeding would not be guilty of obstructing that proceeding. But if in the process they happened to damage an exhibit, the statute would apply. Filing a false affidavit in a proceeding would be covered, even if it had no effect at all; violently halting the entire proceeding would not.

There’s no reason Congress would pass a law that makes such irrational distinctions. Congress might have been motivated by document shredding during the Enron scandal, but it sensibly responded by passing a statute that bars all obstruction, not one that prohibits certain types of obstruction while condoning others.

Nevertheless, Jan. 6 defendants maintain the court must disregard the statute’s clear language based on fears about how it might be applied. They argue that if the law is not limited to evidence impairment, prosecutors might target trivial offenses or otherwise protected activities, like lobbying or peaceful protests.

Several of the conservative justices seemed sympathetic to this argument. Justice Neil Gorsuch, for example, questioned whether a sit-in that disrupts a trial or heckler at the State of the Union address would violate the law. Pointing to such supposed dangers, Fischer’s counsel, Jeffrey Green, urged the court not to unleash this sweeping new prosecutorial power.

Except it’s not new. Section 1512(c) has been on the books for more than 20 years. Another federal statute that prohibits the corrupt obstruction of congressional proceedings has been around since the 1940s. If prosecutors were itching to prosecute peaceful protesters and legitimate lobbyists for felony obstruction, they’ve had the tools for decades. And yet we haven’t seen those cases.

As Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar pointed out, that’s because “inherent constraints” built into the statute — chiefly the requirement of corrupt intent — limit its reach. It’s true there are many nonviolent and lawful ways to influence a proceeding. But only those for which prosecutors can prove corrupt intent beyond a reasonable doubt risk running afoul of the law. That’s why, as General Prelogar noted, out of more than 1,300 Capitol rioters prosecuted so far, only about one-fourth — generally the most violent, egregious offenders — have been charged under 1512(c).

Mr. Fischer also argues that Section 1512(c) has never been used in a similar case and that this proves the statute does not apply to the events of Jan. 6. But all this really demonstrates is that unprecedented crimes lead to unprecedented prosecutions. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor observed, because we’ve never had an event like Jan. 6 before, “I’m not sure what a lack of history proves.”

The use of a relevant, clearly applicable obstruction law to prosecute the unique events of Jan. 6 does not mean prosecutors will suddenly abandon the discretion and judgment they’ve used for decades when applying the law to more routine cases, any more than prosecuting Mr. Trump for those events means that criminal prosecutions of former presidents will become routine.

It would be foolish to ignore the plain language of the statute to excuse the Capitol rioters based on feared abuses that live only in the imaginations of those seeking to avoid liability.

Even if the Supreme Court agrees that 1512(c) is limited to obstruction involving evidence impairment, the charges against Mr. Trump will probably survive. Prosecutors can argue that attempting to submit slates of phony electors and efforts to have the real ballots discarded constituted evidence-based obstruction. Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson both raised that possibility during the argument, although without referring to Mr. Trump’s case.

But a ruling for Mr. Fischer would call into question the convictions, guilty pleas and prosecutions of scores of other Jan. 6 defendants. And it would provide an unjustified rallying cry for those who protest that the Justice Department has overreached when prosecuting Jan. 6 defendants.

Such a disruptive ruling is possible only if the court goes out of its way to disregard the statutory language and create ambiguity where none exists. If the Supreme Court stays true to its textualist principles, this is an easy case.

Randall D. Eliason is a former chief of the fraud and public corruption section at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and teaches white-collar criminal law at George Washington University Law School. He blogs at Sidebars .

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

Lawmakers overcame House GOP blockade to advance Arizona abortion ban repeal. What's next?

Arizona’s 1864 abortion ban could be removed from state law by next week following Wednesday’s passage of a repeal bill in the state House of Representatives.

Advocates of legal abortion say the move, if successful, would mean less chance of women being harmed.

Some Republicans believe it would also subdue some of the political fallout from the April 9 state Supreme Court ruling ahead of a key election that could decide control of the Legislature. Others, like San Tan Valley Republican Rep. Jacqueline Parker, have denounced that position. Parker slammed Republicans who crossed over to vote with Democrats to approve overturning the ban, saying a GOP legislative majority doesn't matter if Republicans won't fight for their values.

But House Bill 2677 still has to clear the state Senate on May 1 before it can land on Gov. Katie Hobbs’ desk for a signature.

All signs point to an easy process, but surprises are possible. Here’s how the repeal bill will likely move forward.

Meeting three-day requirement

The state constitution requires both chambers to hear bills on three separate days before voting on them, but not if two identical bills are merged.

In this case, House Bill 2677 has been heard three times in the House. The state Senate has its own repeal bill winding through the process, but that bill has only been heard twice in the Senate.

To avoid delay, the Senate bill will likely be substituted with the House bill. Doing that would mean the bill could be voted on in the Senate because it’s already been heard three times.

House bill moved without extra motion

Rep. Matt Gress of Phoenix, one of three Republicans who voted with Democrats to pass House Bill 2677, motioned after the vote to transmit the bill immediately to the Senate, then send it immediately to the governor unless the Senate amended it.

The motion failed on a 30-30 vote.

But House Speaker Ben Toma's anger was palpable over the apparent assumption he would slow-walk the bill to the Senate if not for the motion.

Toma, R-Glendale, stripped Gress and Democratic Rep. Oscar De Los Santos of their assignments in the House Appropriations Committee. Toma also removed De Los Santos, who serves as assistant minority leader, from the Rules Committee.

"Procedurally, he decided to do things in such a way that, if you will, defied the caucus," Toma said Thursday of Gress on public radio station KJZZ. "And there has to be caucus unity and caucus discipline."

He added that Gress’ motion to have the repeal bill sent immediately to the Senate and for it to be returned without amendments after almost all Republicans voted against the repeal “rubs a raw wound.”

It turned out the motion was unnecessary. House spokesperson Andrew Wilder said the House transmitted the bill to the Senate immediately on Wednesday.

As for De Los Santos, Toma said he removed the Democrat because of his role in leading a loud protest against the failure of the House two weeks ago to allow a vote on HB2677.

Arizona abortion repeal still needs another week

The Senate had already adjourned when the House passed the bill, so it couldn’t take any immediate action on it. Both the state House and Senate currently meet only once each Wednesday while legislative leaders and Hobbs negotiate terms of the state budget.

That means the Senate will most likely vote on the bill May 1 following a procedural motion to swap the Senate bill with House Bill 2677.

Hobbs could sign the bill the same day, but it won't go into effect until 90 days after the legislative session ends.

Reach the reporter at  [email protected]  or 480-276-3237. Follow him on X @raystern .

Reporter Mary Jo Pitzl contributed to this article