Behind closed doors, Ginni Thomas is working with many groups directly involved in controversial cases before SCOTUS!
How much access do spouses of Supreme Court Justices have? It is becoming more of a concern as spouses such as Ginni Thomas, Justice Clarence Thomas’ wife becomes more and more outspoken about and intimate with groups involved with cases before the Court. When members of Congress introduced legislation requiring Justices to adhere to the same ethics standards as other judges, Chief Justice Roberts year-end report stated “The Judiciary’s power to manage its internal affairs insulates courts from inappropriate political influence.” But is it?
It is reported that Ginni Thomas “has declared that America is in existential danger because of ‘deep state’ and the ‘fascist left,’ which includes ‘transsexual fascists.” (by Chloe Cushman) She runs a small political-lobbying firm, Liberty Consulting, and is a member of hard-line groups. She cheered on Trump supported at the Stop the Steal rally which turned into an assault, later claiming her posts were before the violence. It is reported she has direct access to Justice Thomas’ clerks.
As reported in The New Yorker, Stephen Gillers, a law professor at N.Y.U and prominent judicial ethicist stated: “I think Ginni Thomas is behaving horribly, and she’s hurt the Supreme Court and the administration of justice. It’s reprehensible.”
Justices are supposed to recuse themselves from hearing any case in which person entanglements could lead to question their impartiality. It currently appears that Justice Thomas is very close to if not in such a entanglement.
Bruce Green, a legal ethics professor at Fordham specializing noted: “In the twenty-first century, there’s a feeling that spouses are not joined at the hip. … the appearance” created by Ginni Thomas’s political pursuits “is awful—they look like a mom-and-pop political-hack group, where she does the political stuff and he does the judging. … She’s got the ear of a Justice, and surely they talk about their work.” However, she is technically removed from these cases as she’s not the legal director or acting attorney. But, is the conflict of interest is “close enough” to require that Thomas recuse himself?
Read the full The New Yorker article here.