Recuse from Jan. 6 cases, Thomas asked

In letter, congressional Democrats point to political activism of justice’s wife

WASHINGTON — A group of House and Senate Democrats sent a letter to the Supreme Court on Monday requesting that Justice Clarence Thomas recuse himself from any future cases involving the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol or efforts to overturn the 2020 election, along with a “written explanation for his failure to recuse himself” in previous cases on those subjects.

The letter, spearheaded by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., follows The Washington Post’s reporting on repeated efforts by conservative activist Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, the Supreme Court justice’s wife, to pressure White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to pursue various avenues to overturn the 2020 election.

In the letter, the lawmakers argue that “given the recent disclosures about Ms. Thomas’s efforts to overturn the election and her specific communications with White House officials about doing so, Justice Thomas’s participation in cases involving the 2020 election and the January 6th attack is exceedingly difficult to reconcile with federal ethics requirements,” according to a copy of the letter provided to The Post.

The letter outlines Ginni Thomas’s extensive role as an activist, her position as a board member for a conservative political group involved in the “Stop the Steal” movement and her direct communication with the White House about strategies to overturn the results of the 2020 election as examples of ethical entanglements for her husband.

Ginni Thomas has previously denied any conflicts of interest with her husband’s work.

“Clarence doesn’t discuss his work with me, and I don’t involve him in my work,” she said in an interview with the Washington Free Beacon this month.

The lawmakers also called on Chief Justice John Roberts by April 28 to commit to creating “a binding Code of Conduct for the Supreme Court — the only court in the country not currently subject to a judicial code of ethics — that includes (1) enforceable provisions to ensure that the Justices comply with this Code and (2) a requirement that all Justices issue written recusal decision,” according to the letter.

CALL FOR RESIGNATION

On Tuesday, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., called for Clarence Thomas to resign from the Supreme Court.

“If not, his failure to disclose income from right-wing organizations, recuse himself from matters involving his wife, and his vote to block the Jan. 6th commission from key information must be investigated and could serve as grounds for impeachment,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted.

Ocasio- Cortez’s call for Thomas to resign — as well as her raising the prospect an impeachment effort — goes further than most other Democrats have in their demands for Thomas to recuse himself from cases involving the 2020 election or the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection after certain texts from his wife came to light last week.

Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., also has said Thomas should be impeached.

Unlike federal judges, Supreme Court justices are not subject to an ethical code of conduct and can be removed only by impeachment.

The House would need to draft articles of impeachment, then a simple majority would need to vote to impeach.

At least two-thirds of the Senate would then need to vote to convict the justice. Samuel Chase remains the only Supreme Court justice to have been impeached in U.S. history, but the Senate ultimately acquitted him.

In the past week, a growing number of Democratic members of Congress have called on Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from certain cases.

“The facts are clear here. This is unbelievable,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D- Minn., said on ABC News’s “This Week” on Sunday. “You have the wife of a sitting Supreme Court justice advocating for an insurrection, advocating for overturning a legal election to the sitting president’s chief of staff. And she also knows this election, these cases are going to come before her husband.”

Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., said that the legitimacy of the Supreme Court was at stake and that “clearly” the justice should have recused himself from decisions related to the election.