Upcoming Colorado Ballot Case
Washington, DC – Congressman Dan Goldman (NY-10) yesterday joined Congressman Hank Johnson (GA-04) and six House colleagues in sending a letter to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas urging him to recuse himself from the upcoming Trump Colorado ballot case.
This letter follows an earlier request for Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from ruling on United States of America v. Donald J. Trump, in which former President Donald Trump is charged with conspiring to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election, conspiring to obstruct the certification of the electoral vote, and actually obstructing the certification of the electoral vote. Justice Thomas has already recused himself
from an appeal by ex-Trump lawyer John Eastman in a case on the January 6 insurrection.
The letter highlights Justice Thomas’s wife, Ginni Thomas’s, intimate involvement in the planning of the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol as well as efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.
“Not only did your wife attend the January 6 rally, but she was instrumental in planning it and bringing the insurrectionists to the Capitol,” the lawmakers wrote. “Your wife was one of nine board members for a conservative political group that helped lead the ‘Stop the Steal’ movement, a movement which culminated in the January 6 attack that the Colorado Supreme Court deemed an insurrection.”
It also directly connects Justice Thomas’s and his wife’s financial stake in any potential ruling for the first time by outlining how the value of Mrs. Thomas’s firm directly benefitted from the Trump presidency. During Trump’s presidency, Ginni Thomas’s firm’s valuation increased by nearly 1000 percent, only to decrease again when President Trump left the White House.
“Your wife’s income benefits your household, therefore your family, and by extension you personally. You have a financial stake in the outcome of this case, which disqualifies you from any involvement in it,” the lawmakers continued.
The letter points out that the Code of Conduct Justice Thomas signed just two months ago states that: “The Justice knows that the Justice. ...or the Justice’s spouse… has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding,” or those in which “The Justice or Justice’s spouse…is known by the Justice:…(iii) to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.”
Following recent reporting of ethical lapses from Supreme Court Justices, public trust in the Court has eroded. Earlier this year it was revealed that Justice Thomas failed to disclose gifts and travel from political activist Harlan Crow with at least one trip valued at over $500,000. Reports have also revealed that Crow bought properties from Justice Thomas and his relatives for at least double what Justice Thomas had said those properties were worth. Justice Thomas’ family received up to $750,000 in income yearly from a firm that has not existed since 2006.
It was also reported that Justice Alito accepted extravagant gifts from major conservative donors including Paul Singer, a hedge fund billionaire who has repeatedly asked the Court to rule on his business dealings. The allegations that Justice Alito accepted a paid-for vacation that totaled hundreds of thousands of dollars from Leonard Leo, who had recently played a significant role in Justice Alito’s confirmation process, further serve to undermine the legitimacy of the court.
Congressman Dan Goldman has repeatedly called on Chief Justice John Roberts to establish an ethics counsel within Supreme Court to standardize ethics procedures, advise justices on ethical issues, and prevent ethical misjudgements.
Congressman Goldman is also a cosponsor of the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency (SCERT) Act and the Judicial Ethics and Anti-Corruption Act to formally establish a code of conduct for Supreme Court Justices.
Read the full letter below:
Dear Justice Thomas,
On December 15, 2023, we wrote imploring that you recuse yourself from any participation in the case of United States v. Trump, given your wife’s intimate involvement in Mr. Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election and to obstruct its certification. This week, we are compelled to write to you again. This time, we must urge you to recuse yourself from any involvement in the case of Anderson v. Griswold, because your impartiality is reasonably questioned by substantial numbers of fair-minded members of the public, who believe you wife Virginia (“Ginni”) Thomas’s substantial involvement in the events leading up to the January 6 insurrection, and the financial incentive it presents for your household if President Trump is re-elected, are disqualifying.
As we noted in our last letter, the Supreme Court announced a formal Code of Conduct. In Cannon 3B, the Code states that “A Justice should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the Justice’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, that is, where an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant circumstances would doubt that the Justice could fairly discharge his or her duties.” The Code details such instances, including those in which “The Justice knows that the Justice…or the Justice’s spouse… has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding,” or those in which “The Justice or Justice’s spouse…is known by the Justice:…(iii) to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.”
When summoned to testify before the House January 6 Committee, your wife told the Committee that she attended the January 6 “Stop the Steal” rally, where Mr. Trump ginned up the attendees into a mob, which he then dispatched to the Capitol to “fight like hell” to stop the electoral vote certification process. The January 6 rally morphed into the attack on the Capitol and on Congress, which the Colorado Court found to have been an insurrection, an act which disqualifies Mr. Trump from having his name placed on the presidential primary election ballot in that state. Not only did your wife attend the January 6 rally, but she was instrumental in planning it and bringing the insurrectionists to the Capitol. Your wife was one of nine board members for a conservative political group that helped lead the “Stop the Steal” movement, a movement which culminated in the January 6 attack that the Colorado Supreme Court deemed an insurrection. It is unthinkable that you could be impartial in deciding whether an event your wife personally organized qualifies as an “insurrection” that would prevent someone from holding the office of President.
Furthermore, your wife of 36 years, Ms. Thomas, has shown a fervent bias in favor of Mr. Trump, and it is hard to believe that her bias has no impact on you, which is why reasonable people aware of the relevant facts and circumstances doubt that you can fairly discharge your duty to be impartial in hearing this case. Ms. Thomas urged Mr. Trump’s Chief of Staff (Mark Meadows) to pursue unrelenting efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, with dozens of texts starting immediately after Election Day 2020 and ending only days after the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. She also signed a letter urging then-House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy to remove outspoken Trump critics, Representatives Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney, from the January 6 Committee. Ms. Thomas was a witness for Congress’ January 6 Committee due to her intimate involvement, and that Committee’s report is integral to this case. In her testimony to the Committee, nearly two years after the January 6 insurrection, Ms. Thomas testified that she still believed the 2020 election had been stolen. There is no evidence that her views about the 2020 election have softened, and it is unreasonable to conclude your wife’s fervent views do not bleed over to and affect your opinions, and affect your ability to be impartial in a case about Mr. Trump’s efforts to prevent the orderly transition of power.
Finally, it is foreseeable that your wife’s earning capacity will be positively impacted should the Court grant the relief sought by the former president. From the little that is public about Ms. Thomas’s for-profit firm, Liberty Consulting, it is clearly aligned with Mr. Trump’s interests. Liberty Consulting’s few known clients include the FedUp PAC, which later backed Mr. Trump during the 2020 election cycle, and Center for Security Policy, whose president filed an amicus brief in support of Mr. Trump’s Muslim ban. The value of Ms. Thomas’s consulting firm skyrocketed from only “up to $15,000” before Mr. Trump was elected to “between $100,0001 and $250,000” during his presidency, and then fell again to “between $15,001 and $50,000” the year Mr. Trump lost the White House. Ms. Thomas’ professional and financial interests are aligned with Mr. Trump becoming President again, and should he be re-elected it is likely that your wife’s income will be favorably impacted.
Your wife’s income benefits your household, therefore your family, and by extension you personally. You have a financial stake in the outcome of this case, which disqualifies you from any involvement in it.
Fewer than half of all Americans trust the Supreme Court, and that number will fall even lower if you rule in this case. A justice should not sit in judgement of his own wife’s behavior, nor in judgement of his wife’s professional and financial fortunes. Yet that is exactly what you would be doing should you refuse to recuse in this case. To protect the Court’s integrity and the legitimacy of its decision in this monumental case, you must recuse yourself.
###
(Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) Press Release)
