Justice Thomas Recusal Arguments: A Rebuttal

We return yet again to the latest in a long train of left-wing efforts to get rid of Justice Clarence Thomas and his inconvenient insistence on adhering to the Constitution. This time, the critics claim that Thomas should have recused himself from two cases before the Court because of his wife’s activities — the Trump v. Hawaii case, in which his wife did paid consulting work for an organization that filed an amicus brief in the case, and Trump v. Thompson, a case involving claims of executive privilege over documents sought by the House January 6 committee from Mark Meadows and other aides to Donald Trump. The critics, however, fail to grapple seriously with the Supreme Court’s rules and precedential standards for a justice recusing from cases when he or she is accused of an actual or perceived conflict of interest.

Recusal demands targeting conservative justices have become a common weapon aimed, not at upholding the Supreme Court’s ethical standards, but at delegitimizing its rulings. The desperation of Democrats and progressives over the Court’s direction has mounted since 2016, and it is approaching fever pitch as the Court considers whether to overturn Roe v. Wade. Thomas’s enemies have gone into spasms of feverish fury. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: “Clarence Thomas should resign. 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.” Ted Lieu: “The issue is not the crazy sh** that Ginni Thomas engaged in. It’s the coverup by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.”

About the Author

Dan McLaughlin

Dan McLaughlin is a senior writer at National Review Online and a fellow at National Review Institute.

Featured Tags

We return yet again to the latest in a long train of left-wing efforts to get rid of Justice Clarence Thomas and his inconvenient insistence on adhering to the Constitution. This time, the critics claim that Thomas should have recused himself from two cases before the Court because of his wife’s activities — the Trump v. Hawaii case, in which his wife did paid consulting work for an organization that filed an amicus brief in the case, and Trump v. Thompson, a case involving claims of executive privilege over documents sought by the House January 6 committee from Mark Meadows and other aides to Donald Trump. The critics, however, fail to grapple seriously with the Supreme Court’s rules and precedential standards for a justice recusing from cases when he or she is accused of an actual or perceived conflict of interest.

Recusal demands targeting conservative justices have become a common weapon aimed, not at upholding the Supreme Court’s ethical standards, but at delegitimizing its rulings. The desperation of Democrats and progressives over the Court’s direction has mounted since 2016, and it is approaching fever pitch as the Court considers whether to overturn Roe v. Wade. Thomas’s enemies have gone into spasms of feverish fury. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: “Clarence Thomas should resign. 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.” Ted Lieu: “The issue is not the crazy sh** that Ginni Thomas engaged in. It’s the coverup by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.”