Supreme Court rejects John Eastman’s challenge over email disclosure; Justice Thomas recuses himself

The Supreme Court announced Monday it would not hear a challenge from pro-Trump attorney John Eastman, who argued against House Democrats’ obtaining his emails related to the investigation into the U.S. Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.

A federal court had ordered him to turn over 10 emails to House Democrats as they probed the Jan. 6 attack. The lower court recognized the emails were covered by attorney-client privilege and work product, but reasoned the crime-fraud exception applied, meaning privileges could be waived.

Mr. Eastman appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals over the decision. Before the appellate court issued a decision, the production deadline came and he turned over the emails to the House Democrats, who then provided a link to them for the public and to reporters who shared the contents widely.

Mr. Eastman had asked the high court to review the precedent that led to him turning over what he says are confidential emails.

The justices, though, rejected that request. It would have taken four justices to vote in favor of reviewing the matter.

Justice Clarence Thomas did not participate in the decision.

Liberal advocates had called for him to recuse himself over 2020 election-related cases after it was revealed his wife, Virginia Thomas, attended the Jan. 6 rally outside the White House in support of former President Donald Trump and was in touch with Trump allies challenging the election results.

The court did not give a comment over Justice Thomas’ recusal.

The one-line order read: “Justice Thomas took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.”

An attorney for Mr. Eastman expressed disappointment that the high court didn’t step in to overrule the lower court.

“We’re disappointed, of course, that the Court did not accept our request to correct this clear violation of its Munsingwear doctrine, which requires vacating lower court decisions that have become moot, through no fault of the party exercising his right to an appeal,” said Anthony Caso, a lawyer for Mr. Eastman.