Legal experts slam 'mind-boggling' Clarence Thomas dissent in case over Trump's Jan. 6th records
Official portrait of Justice Clarence Thomas (Wikimedia Commons)

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."

Former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance similarly praised the decision, although she expressed surprise at the reasoning the Court stated in its decision.

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.

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.

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