This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A new analysis from The Federalist exposes the Joe Biden administration for changing the nation's laws "to serve political purposes."

The confirmation came in the recent hearing in a case in which a federal statute regarding tampering with evidence is playing a role.

The law states: "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."

It has been used hundreds of times against those Jan. 6, 2021, protesters who were objecting to what they viewed as a skewed presidential election count, including President Donald Trump.

But the argument against its use is that it hasn't been used in other, similar, scenarios in the past.

The analysis is from Margot Cleveland, whose writings have appeared in dozens of major publications and who is a lawyer and graduate of Notre Dame where she was given the law school's highest honor, before she served for nearly 25 years as law clerk on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

During arguments, she explained, Biden's solicitor general "painted a picture of the Biden administration enlarging or contracting statutory language to serve political purposes."

The Biden administration's contention to the court is that the law has extensive application, "other than when Antifa burns a courthouse, a member of Congress pulls a fire alarm, or mostly peaceful protesters delay court or congressional hearings."

She explained, "Anyone paying the slightest attention to the Biden administration’s prosecution of J6 protesters and its slap-on-the-wrist coddling of other protesters knows there’s a double standard in play. But the justices’ questioning of the Biden administration during Tuesday’s oral argument in Fischer v. United States forced the government to attempt to justify that disparate treatment."

Questions from the justices prompted Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar to admit that the punishment is being used widely against J6 protesters, but in the eyes of the Biden administration, other situations didn't call for its use.

For example, a "sit-in" disrupts a trial or access to a federal courthouse, or a "heckler" at the State of the Union, or "pulling a fire alarm before a vote" in Congress, has Rep. Jamaal Bowman, a Democrat, did.

Prelogar said it was the opinion of the Biden DOJ that that conduct "has only a minimal effect on official proceedings."

But, Cleveland confirmed, the law has no exemption for minor "interference" with official proceedings.

"So, why would the Biden administration seek to exempt protests or other disturbances that have only a minimal effect on official proceedings from the scope of Section 1512(c)?" she wrote. "Simply put, because the Department of Justice has never used Section 1512(c) in the way it is being used against the J6 protesters."

That means, the analysis explained, the Biden DOJ was changing the law, "enlarging or contracting," to serve Biden's political agenda.

The analysis found that court appeared unlikely to go along with Biden's re-interpretation of the statute.