Recusal Issues at the Jackson Hearings; A Ruling on Eastman’s Emails Can Lead To A Trump Indictment

The confirmation hearings on Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s nomination to the Supreme Court are likely to include questions about whether, if confirmed, she would have to recuse herself from the Harvard affirmative action case now before the Court because of her six year membership on the Harvard Board of Overseers. Questions may also arise about her various recusal decisions while on the District Court.

A federal judge in California will decide imminently if the January 6 Committee can discover emails of John Eastman, who was instrumental in the effort to prevent President Biden’s inauguration. If the court finds for the Committee on the crime fraud exception to the attorney client privilege, its ruling can bring added pressure on the Department of Justice to indict Trump and others.

Stephen Gillers is the Elihu Root Professor of Law and Barbara Gillers is an Adjunct Professor of Law, both at New York University School of Law.

Listen on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify or Stitcher.

Reference List for Podcast #13: Recusal Issues at the Jackson Hearings; A Ruling on Eastman’s Emails Can Lead To A Trump Indictment

Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College

28 U.S. C. § 455

ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 4.1(A)(13) (the “pledges and promises” clause)

Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002)

United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554 (1989)

DOJ Manual (Google “Justice Manual”) § 9-27-220

Mohawk Industries v. Carter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009)