On Wednesday, in an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court rejected former President Donald Trump's effort to block the release of presidential papers from the National Archives to the House Select Committee investigating the January 6 Capitol insurrection — bringing an end to a heated legal battle and giving the committee a major win.
The decision promptly triggered reactions from legal and political scholars. Former Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe praised the decision, calling it "huge."
Supreme Court gets one right: It won\u2019t block release by National Archives of the mass of presidential papers sought by the Jan 6 committee that Trump moved heaven and earth to keep hidden. THIS IS HUGE.— Laurence Tribe (@Laurence Tribe) 1642634203
Former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance similarly praised the decision, although she expressed surprise at the reasoning the Court stated in its decision.
SCOTUS cleared the way for release of Trump papers 8-1, altho it oddly bases its ruling on the point that even if Trump was incumbent POTUS, release would have still been proper, explicitly rejecting the Ct of App's analysis of former presidents' rights https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a272_9p6b.pdf\u00a0\u2026https://twitter.com/JoyceWhiteVance/status/1474077266669932550\u00a0\u2026— Joyce Alene (@Joyce Alene) 1642634541
American Bridge attorney Brad Moss sardonically referenced the fact that former President Trump is unlikely to pay the lawyers who represented him in the failed suit.
I sure hope Trump\u2019s lawyers demanded payment upfront. They\u2019re definitely not getting paid now.— Bradley P. Moss (@Bradley P. Moss) 1642634488
Political scholar Norm Ornstein, meanwhile, took aim at Justice Clarence Thomas — the lone dissenting justice — for not recusing himself from the case, given his wife's public support for the Capitol insurrectionists as the attack was unfolding.
The fact that Clarence Thomas continues to fail to recuse himself, given the activities of his wife that are directly related to the insurrection, is mind-bogglinghttps://twitter.com/mjs_dc/status/1483941331995176965\u00a0\u2026— Norman Ornstein (@Norman Ornstein) 1642634366
Yale Law School professor Scott Shapiro joked on Twitter that he wondered if there was a "legal claim so absurd that even Clarence Thomas wouldn’t dissent."
Florida-based Democratic attorney Daniel Uhlfelder, meanwhile, wrote that "Justice Clarence Thomas really doesn’t want the January 6th committee to see those documents."
IN RELATED NEWS: ‘Nail in the coffin’: MSNBC analyst explains why Steve Bannon and Mark Meadows are ‘in deep doo-doo’
‘Nail in the coffin’: MSNBC analyst explains why Steve Bannon and Mark Meadows are ‘in deep doo-doo’www.youtube.com
