A former lawyer to Donald Trump asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse lower court rulings that enabled the now-defunct House January 6 committee to access information, arguing that those decisions harm the former president’s presidential aspirations.
Carter had written last year that his court found it “more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021” along with Eastman. Both Trump and Eastman have denied wrongdoing, while Trump has often pointed to public statements he made on Jan. 6 that protesters should demonstrate peacefully and respect local law enforcement officials.
The California-based judge, who ran unsuccessfully as a Democrat for California’s 38th Congressional District years ago, also claimed that the “illegality of the plan was obvious” and said the United States was “founded on the peaceful transition of power, epitomized by George Washington laying down his sword to make way for democratic elections.” Eastman had claimed attorney-client privilege, but Carter rejected the claim and ruled that attorney-client privilege does not apply if the discussion involved an alleged crime.
That was in connection to Eastman having written a memo outlining a legal strategy for Vice President Mike Pence to reject the Electoral College votes for then-candidate Joe Biden while he presided over the Jan. 6 session. Pence did not ultimately go through with what was outlined in Eastman’s document, and Trump—now a 2024 presidential candidate—criticized Pence on social media for the move. Pence is reportedly slated to announce a presidential bid of his own in the coming weeks.
In late 2022, Trump criticized Carter for what he described as a partisan ruling.
Petition
In his Supreme Court petition, Eastman argued that the “respondent committee’s action of accessing disputed documents while a motion to stay was pending, and then publishing in a public filing a live link to the confidential documents that were the subject of the appeal, deprived Petitioner (Eastman) of the opportunity to show that the ‘crime-fraud’ conclusions of the District Court were clearly erroneous, thus clearing his name and that of his former client, former President Trump,” according to his petition.“Because the law is clearly established and the facts are not in dispute, this case is a candidate for summary reversal with an order that the District Court judgment and orders be vacated,” he also wrote.
Eastman’s filing was made in late April but was only made public on the Supreme Court’s docket this week. Notably, Eastman is a former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and was a law professor at Chapman University.
“This case became moot by the unilateral action of the defendant that prevailed in the District Court,” the filing concluded. “Respondent committee’s action of accessing disputed documents while a motion to stay was pending, and then publishing in a public filing a live link to the confidential documents that were the subject of the appeal, deprived Petitioner of the opportunity to show that the ‘crime-fraud’ conclusions of the District Court were clearly erroneous, thus clearing his name and that of his former client, former President Trump.”
The committee also recommended that Eastman face prosecution on two counts. “The evidence shows that Eastman knew in advance of the 2020 election that Vice President Pence could not refuse to count electoral votes on January 6th,” the committee wrote in a report.