Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are urging Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from an upcoming decision on an appeal by Donald Trump’s legal team claiming immunity in his indictment related to the 2020 election.
The Democrats have argued in interviews that Thomas has a conflict of interest in the case due to his wife Ginni Thomas’s role in the January 6, 2021 attempted coup to install Trump as president. In the run-up to the certification of the 2020 election, Ginni Thomas leveraged her connections and sent texts to Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows in support of the plot to overturn the result. She also attended the “Stop the Steal” rally immediately before the crowd of Trump militants stormed the Capitol.
Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) told CNN and The Hill that Clarence Thomas should consider recusing himself. “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,” Durbin said, per The Hill.
He went on to express concern that the Supreme Court may agree with Trump’s legal team and allow him to get his election indictment thrown out. “If we say certain people are above the law, I believe it diminishes values in this country,” he added.
On Monday, special counsel Jack Smith requested the Supreme Court to consider Trump’s claim that he has immunity from crimes he may have committed in the case because he was the president at the time. The Court has agreed to consider the request, and told Trump’s team to respond with their case by December 20.
This allows the case to leapfrog over the appeals court process, an ask Smith made due to concerns over the Trump team’s attempts to drag out the case in anticipation of the 2024 election. The trial for the election case is scheduled for March 4.
Clarence Thomas has faced scrutiny over his close ties to the attempted coup, and has been urged to recuse himself from several Trump-related cases prior to now; last year, the justice was the lone dissent on a Supreme Court decision to reject Trump’s bid to block the release of White House records concerning January 6.
Judiciary Committee members Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut) and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) also agreed that Ginni Thomas’s ties to Trump’s attempts to overturn the election — the heart of Trump’s election indictment — make it so that Clarence Thomas would have a conflict of interest in the result of the decision.
“Recusal usually applies when there’s an actual conflict and when there’s an appearance of conflict,” Hirono added, per The Hill. “I think in Clarence Thomas’s case, it’s both.”
She went on to say that Clarence Thomas should also have recused himself from previous cases related not just to Trump, but also the overall attempt to overturn the election, like when the Supreme Court considered Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-South Carolina) bid to avoid being questioned by a Georgia grand jury about his role in trying to get the election results overturned in the state.
“I think Justice Thomas should have recused himself from some of the other cases that came before him where his wife was very much involved. The fact he didn’t really raises concerns for whether they have a recusal practice that makes any kind of sense,” said Hirono.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.