Democratic lawmakers are calling on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from a case involving former President Trump’s presidential immunity. They argue that Thomas’ wife’s involvement in efforts to overturn the 2020 election results raises serious questions about the justice’s ability to remain impartial.
The case in question is examining Trump’s immunity from prosecution in connection to charges related to conspiring to obstruct the 2020 election results. U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan ruled against Trump in December, a decision that he has since appealed to the Supreme Court.
In a letter dated December 15, eight House Democrats, led by Rep. Hank Johnson, called on Thomas to recuse himself from the case, citing the new code of conduct for justices, which emphasizes the importance of impartiality.
The lawmakers specifically raised concerns about Thomas’ wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, and her conservative activism, which included efforts to overturn the election and her attendance at the Stop the Steal rally before the January 6 Capitol attack.
Several Senate Democrats have also expressed the view that Thomas should recuse himself from the case. Judiciary Committee chairman Richard J. Durbin said, “There are so many unanswered questions about the relationship of the justice and his family with the Trump administration that I think in the interests of justice, he should recuse himself.”
The code of conduct for Supreme Court justices stipulates that if their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” they should disqualify themselves from a case. Additionally, if they or their spouse have “an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding,” or if the spouse is “likely to be a material witness in the proceeding,” recusal is suggested.
It remains to be seen whether Thomas will recuse himself from the Trump immunity case. He had previously recused himself in October from an appeal by his former clerk John Eastman, the architect of Trump’s election-stealing efforts. However, Thomas did not provide a reason for his recusal.