[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 114 (Wednesday, July 10, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H4581-H4582]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 INTRODUCING ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST ASSOCIATE JUSTICES THOMAS 
                               AND ALITO

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 9, 2023, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Ocasio-Cortez) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce Articles of 
Impeachment against Associate Justices of the Supreme Court Clarence 
Thomas and Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr.
  Against Justice Thomas, the resolution includes three total articles: 
one count of failure to disclose financial income, gifts and 
reimbursements, property interests, liabilities, and transactions, 
among other information, and two counts of refusal to recuse from 
matters concerning his spouse's legal and financial interests before 
the Court.
  The second resolution includes the following Articles of Impeachment 
against Justice Alito: one count of refusal to recuse from cases in 
which he had a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party before the 
Court, and one count of failure to disclose financial income, gifts and 
reimbursements, property interests, among other information.
  Mr. Speaker, nomination and appointment to the Supreme Court is one 
of the highest privileges and most consequential responsibilities of 
our Nation. Such an appointment is uniquely insulated in its power. 
Confirmation to the Court is a lifetime appointment whereby Justices 
are entrusted with decisions that powerfully shape the Nation as well 
as the lives of every American.
  For this reason and others, the Constitution rightfully and 
explicitly holds Justices to even higher standards than Members of 
Congress or even the President. Section 1 of Article III of the 
Constitution commands Federal Justices to ``hold their offices during 
good behavior,'' in addition to its clauses barring treason, bribery, 
and other high crimes and misdemeanors.
  Congress has exercised its power to reinforce this higher standard of 
the judiciary before. This body has impeached and removed eight Federal 
judges for transgressions ranging from evading income tax and perjury 
to intoxication on the bench and abandoning the office to join the 
Confederacy.
  Perhaps most critical to the legitimacy of the institution, these 
judicial standards require Justices to recuse themselves in any 
proceeding where their impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
  In other words, if a person could reasonably believe that the 
legitimacy of a Justice's judgment could be, or be perceived to be, 
compromised due to their personal involvement in the case or its 
parties, the standard is clear: The Justice must recuse. They are 
required to recuse.
  That stringent and sacred standard exists for the good of the ruling, 
the judiciary, and the country.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that everyday Americans, independent of party 
or ideology, can reasonably conclude that Justices Thomas and Alito's 
yearslong pattern of misconduct and failure to recuse in cases bearing 
their clear personal and financial involvement represents an abuse of 
power and threat to our democracy fundamentally incompatible with 
continued service on our Nation's highest court.
  For the good of the institution and the Nation, absent resignation, 
they must be removed. The proof is undeniable, and here I will lay it 
out.
  Justice Clarence Thomas for decades now has carried on a close, 
financially entangled personal relationship with real estate 
billionaire Harlan Crow. It is of material importance to the American 
people to note that Justice Thomas' relationship to the billionaire 
only began after Thomas' powerful appointment to our Nation's highest 
court.
  The cash, goods, and services Justice Thomas received over the years 
include large loan balance cancellations, tuition payments for family, 
and vacations in private jets and yachts worth up to half a million 
dollars alone. In total, Justice Thomas appears to have received $1.5 
million worth in goods, cash equivalents, and services from Mr. Crow.
  That is just what we know of. Truthfully, we won't ever really know 
the total sum of contributions Justice Thomas received from Mr. Crow.
  Justice Thomas not only accepted these contributions while Mr. Crow 
had business in front of the Court, but he accepted them in secret, 
failing for years and years to report them. Yet, Thomas did report 
smaller gifts during this time, demonstrating a clear understanding of 
his legal obligation to report.
  Would a reasonable American question that receiving lavish gifts from 
Mr. Crow might lead Justice Thomas to have a bias toward his ``friend'' 
with business before the Court? Without a doubt, yes. But did Justice 
Thomas recuse? No.
  Now, take Justice Samuel Alito, who has no shortage of billionaire 
associates of his own. After billionaire Paul Singer gave Justice Alito 
a luxury fishing trip via private jet, a contribution that was also 
hidden from the public and the Court, Justice Alito not only refused to 
recuse but changed his mind regarding his gracious host's case. Just a 
short time after accepting the lavish undisclosed trip from Mr. Singer, 
Alito joined the Court in reversing its previous position and took up 
Mr. Singer's case. He did not recuse.
  Justice Alito also refused to recuse in the case itself, ultimately 
leading to a ruling that netted Mr. Singer $2.4 billion.
  That ruling did not just enrich Mr. Singer. It also structurally 
tilted the playing field further away from working people and toward 
the vulture funds siphoning money away from the communities that need 
them most.
  Could a reasonable American question whether or not Justice Alito 
could have acted impartially in this case given his personal 
relationship with Mr. Singer?

                              {time}  1945

  Absolutely.
  In January 2021, after the former President of the United States 
incited an insurrection on the Capitol in this Chamber to interfere 
with the results of the U.S. election, Justice Samuel Alito and his 
wife flew an upside-down American flag, a symbol of solidarity with 
their attack, outside their home.
  Two years later, they publicly displayed outside their home yet 
another incendiary symbol: a flag associated with extreme rightwing 
Christian nationalism.
  Justice Alito maintains that his wife Martha-Ann Alito is the only 
one responsible for the flags, but common sense maintains that such a 
close and incendiary revelation requires recusal by the Justice from 
January 6-related cases.
  Despite the overwhelming appearance of a conflict of interest, 
Justice Alito refused to recuse himself from cases surrounding the 2020 
election and questions of the former President's legal immunity in the 
attack.
  Would a reasonable person question that Justice Alito's conduct 
exhibits and demonstrates reasonable concern for bias in these cases?
  Absolutely and without question.
  Finally, Justice Thomas, who is married to Virginia Thomas, a 
financially and personally involved operative in the stop the steal 
movement and Capitol attack, also joined opinions in these cases, even 
as clear evidence mounted that not only was his wife fully committed to 
overthrowing the results of a fair election, but she was actively 
lobbying members of the Trump administration attempting to do just 
that.
  The questions before the Court had unquestionable implications for 
Thomas' wife and consequently Thomas himself making his refusal to 
recuse one of the most shocking examples of conflict of interest in the 
Court's history. Crucially, it was both Justices Thomas and Alito who 
cast critical votes in the ruling.
  It now follows that because of Alito's and Thomas' refusals to 
recuse, everyday Americans cannot, should not, and

[[Page H4582]]

will not believe that these Justices, and consequently the Court they 
serve, are working to uphold the Constitution and put the country ahead 
of their own individual self-interest. Americans will not believe that 
the Court interpreted the law independent of profit for themselves and 
their newly termed friends.
  Without action against these blatant violations, reasonable Americans 
have and will continue to lose faith in the Court itself. Reasonable 
Americans will and do believe that Justices Thomas and Alito are prone 
and subject to corruption, that the institution failing to punish them 
is broken, and that consequently their impeachment is a constitutional 
imperative and our congressional duty.
  The abuses of power committed by Justice Thomas and Justice Alito are 
precisely the types of corruption that the Framers understood was an 
existential threat to our democracy. Instances like these, and with 
conduct like that of Alito and Thomas, are precisely why the Framers 
gave us the tool of impeachment. Corruption without consequence infects 
all it touches. That is why this body, Congress, has a constitutional 
and moral obligation to hold these Justices accountable, to maintain 
the integrity of our courts, and to uphold the standards of our 
judiciary for the integrity our institutions.
  Lastly, we cannot ignore the most important, material consequences of 
this Court's unchecked corruption and its resulting influence, the 
suffering of the American people.
  We cannot ignore and pretend that this corruption is wholly unrelated 
to the millions of pregnant Americans now suffering and bleeding out in 
emergency rooms under the Court's unleashing of extreme abortion bans 
across the United States, which was a key political priority of the 
undisclosed benefactors and shadow organizations surrounding Alito's 
and Thomas' misconduct.
  Nor can we ignore the millions of Americans who now are suffering 
hours-long wait times in the hot sun, often without water, just to cast 
a ballot, also a direct result of this corrupt Court's gutting of the 
Voting Rights Act, allowing the closing of polling sites across the 
country.
  Mr. Speaker, neither of these Justices nor their shadowy benefactors 
have to answer to the parents of developmentally delayed children about 
their decision to gut the power of the EPA and the entire 
administrative state with it, but they do have to answer to us, the 
Congress, whom these people have elected and entrusted to protect them 
and to serve them and to defend the well-being of our democracy.
  Mr. Speaker, I am here today presenting these Articles of Impeachment 
not because I am a Democrat and not because I am blind to its odds in a 
Republican-led Chamber. I present them because it is the right thing to 
do. While our Framers perhaps may not have envisioned someone like me 
in this seat, they absolutely did envision the necessity and value of 
the impeachment action which I seek to advance today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________