A former attorney for former President Donald Trump has filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court in a case involving the now-defunct January 6 Committee.

The petition, submitted by attorney John Eastman, asserts that the lower court decisions that allowed the committee to obtain documents harmed the former president’s presidential aspirations, noting that he seeks “to reverse lower court rulings that enabled the… committee to access information, arguing that those decisions harm the former president’s presidential aspirations,” according to The Epoch Times.

According to the petition, a judgment rendered on March 22 by Clinton-appointed U.S. District Judge David O. Carter “created a stigma for both Petitioner and his client, the former President of the United States and current candidate for the presidency.”

According to Carter’s report from the previous year, the court determined that it was “more likely than not that President Trump attempted to corruptly obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021.” According to The Epoch Times, the former president frequently referred to his public remarks from January 6, in which he urged demonstrators to march peacefully and demonstrate respect for local law enforcement officers. Trump and Eastman have both denied committing any misconduct.

The judge, who is from California and once ran a failed Democratic primary for California’s 38th Congressional District, also declared that the “illegality of the plan was obvious” and asserted that 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.”

Carter refuted Eastman’s assertion of attorney-client privilege, contending that the privilege does not apply when the conversation concerns an alleged offense, according to the website. Eastman claimed attorney-client confidentiality.

Carter then instructed Eastman to transmit documents and electronic messages to the House committee formed on January 6, which was subsequently disbanded after Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives.

Among the 33 documents were emails that, according to Carter, appear to demonstrate “an effort by President Trump and his attorneys to press false claims in federal court for the purpose of delaying” the certification of the 2020 election on January 6.

This was related to the document written by Eastman delineating a legal strategy for Vice President Mike Pence to use on January 6 to reject the Electoral College votes cast for then-candidate Joe Biden. However, Pence ultimately decided not to adhere to Eastman’s recommendation.

Trump, who is currently a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024, criticized Pence’s behavior on social media following the event.

According to previous reports, Pence will announce his candidacy for president in the coming weeks.

Trump criticized Carter late last year for what he perceived to be a politicized decision.

“Who’s this Clinton appointed ‘Judge,’ David Carter, who keeps saying, and sending to all, very nasty, wrong, and ill-informed statements about me on rulings, or a case (whatever!), currently going on in California, that I know nothing about—nor am I represented,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.

“With that being said … he shouldn’t be making statements about me until he understands the facts, which he doesn’t!” he added.

In his high court petition, Eastman claimed 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.”

“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 added.