Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Orders Contempt Proceedings Against Former Trump Attorney in Classified Documents Dispute

In an extraordinary and unexpected development, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Friday issued an order directing contempt proceedings against William P. Barr, the former attorney general under President Donald J. Trump, in connection with a long-dormant aspect of the federal investigation into Mr. Trump’s handling of classified documents.

The order, which emerged from a rarely invoked supervisory authority over lower courts, requires Mr. Barr to appear before a federal judge in Florida to address allegations that he withheld critical testimony related to efforts to obstruct the recovery of sensitive government materials from Mr. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. Legal experts described the move as highly unusual, noting that individual justices seldom intervene directly in trial-level proceedings in this manner.

The directive stems from sealed filings reviewed by Justice Thomas in his capacity as the circuit justice overseeing emergency applications from the 11th Circuit, which includes Florida. Sources familiar with the matter, speaking on condition of anonymity because the proceedings remain partly under seal, said the justice invoked the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege — a legal doctrine that allows courts to pierce confidential communications when they are believed to have been used in furtherance of a crime.

At the heart of the dispute is a 2022 subpoena for surveillance footage from Mar-a-Lago, which prosecutors in the special counsel’s investigation alleged showed efforts to conceal boxes containing classified documents. Investigators have long suspected that a phone conversation involving Mr. Trump and associates occurred on the day the subpoena was issued, potentially directing the movement or deletion of evidence.

Mr. Barr, who served as Mr. Trump’s attorney general from 2019 to 2020 and has since emerged as a vocal critic of some of his former boss’s actions, was not directly representing Mr. Trump in the documents matter. However, court records indicate that he provided informal advice to members of Mr. Trump’s inner circle during the early stages of the National Archives’ efforts to retrieve the materials. Prosecutors have argued that certain communications involving Mr. Barr may fall under the crime-fraud exception, particularly if they touched on strategies to delay or mislead federal authorities.

Justice Thomas’s order, a concise three-page directive, emphasized the need for “immediate clarity” on whether privilege claims were being misused to shield potentially obstructive conduct. It directs U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon — who previously dismissed the criminal case against Mr. Trump on unrelated grounds involving the special counsel’s appointment — to reopen limited proceedings for the purpose of compelling Mr. Barr’s testimony. Failure to comply, the order states, could result in contempt sanctions, including fines or, in extreme cases, detention.

The move has sent shock waves through legal and political circles, coming just weeks after the Justice Department, under the second Trump administration, formally abandoned appeals in the classified documents prosecution. That case, which charged Mr. Trump with willful retention of national defense information and obstruction of justice, was dismissed in 2024 following a ruling that Special Counsel Jack Smith had been unconstitutionally appointed — a decision influenced in part by a concurring opinion from Justice Thomas himself in an unrelated immunity case.

Critics of the order, including some conservative legal scholars, questioned its procedural foundation, arguing that Justice Thomas’s intervention bypasses standard appellate channels. “This is an aggressive assertion of individual judicial authority,” said one former federal prosecutor who worked on national security cases. “It’s rare for a Supreme Court justice to wade into evidentiary disputes at this level without a formal emergency application.”

Supporters of Mr. Trump decried the development as a “partisan witch hunt resurrected from the grave.” A spokesman for the former president called it “un-American harassment of a loyal public servant,” adding that Mr. Barr had already distanced himself from any wrongdoing. Mr. Barr’s representatives declined to comment, citing the ongoing nature of the proceedings.

The episode revives memories of the intense scrutiny surrounding Mr. Trump’s post-presidency retention of hundreds of classified documents, some marked at the highest levels of sensitivity. Federal agents recovered more than 300 such records during an August 2022 search of Mar-a-Lago, including materials related to nuclear programs and defense vulnerabilities.

Although the criminal charges against Mr. Trump and two aides were ultimately dropped following his 2024 election victory and subsequent departmental policy shifts, lingering civil and oversight inquiries have persisted. Justice Thomas’s order appears to signal that certain threads of the investigation — particularly those involving potential obstruction — may not be fully closed.

Adding to the intrigue, sources said the justice’s review was prompted by a referral from Judge Cannon, who flagged unresolved privilege disputes in her earlier dismissal order. This has fueled speculation about coordination within the conservative judicial bloc, though associates of Justice Thomas insist the action was taken independently to preserve the integrity of national security investigations.

As the proceedings unfold, they are likely to draw renewed attention to Mr. Barr’s complex relationship with Mr. Trump. Once a staunch defender, Mr. Barr has since criticized the former president’s conduct in the documents matter as “reckless,” while stopping short of endorsing criminal liability.

The contempt hearing is scheduled for early January in Fort Pierce, Fla., where much of the original case was litigated. Whatever testimony emerges could shed new light on the chaotic final months of efforts to retrieve the documents — or, conversely, reinforce claims that the entire probe was overreach.

For now, the walls appear to be closing in once more on figures from Mr. Trump’s orbit, courtesy of one of the Supreme Court’s most conservative members. The full implications remain uncertain, but the drama underscores how the classified documents saga continues to reverberate through the nation’s highest legal institutions.