[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 140 (Tuesday, September 10, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5904-S5905]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           U.S. Supreme Court

  Mr. President, on one other topic of importance, for more than a 
year, story after story has broken about the ethical misconduct by 
sitting Supreme Court Justices. We are talking about the highest Court 
in the land, the nine men and women sitting on the Supreme Court who 
are not governed by the same rules of conduct and ethical standards as 
every other Federal judge in America. They warrant special treatment.
  Justice Clarence Thomas has been at the center of many of these 
stories. For decades--decades--he has accepted lavish gifts and luxury 
trips from a gaggle of fawning billionaires. The total dollar value we 
estimated for these gifts accepted by Clarence Thomas, by and large 
never disclosed, is $4 million. Get that: A Supreme Court Justice in 
the highest Court in the land, life-and-death decisions every day, and 
he is receiving $4 million in gifts that he doesn't disclose.
  Justice Thomas has failed to disclose a vast majority of these gifts, 
in clear violation of financial disclosure requirements under Federal 
law.
  Late last week, another story broke. I am hesitant to raise this 
story because it involves Justice Thomas's spouse, but I can no longer 
avoid the obvious. She is a political activist, and her activism raises 
serious ethical questions.
  According to public reporting, Justice Thomas's wife Ginni sent an 
email to Kelly Shackelford, who runs the First Liberty Institute. This 
rightwing organization, which is on the advisory board of Project 2025, 
which we are learning more about, frequently litigates before the 
Supreme Court and strongly opposes Supreme Court ethics reform.
  In her email, Clarence Thomas's wife Ginni thanked the organization 
for its opposition to court reform--ethical reform--writing, all in 
caps:

       YOU GUYS HAVE FILLED THE SAILS OF MANY JUDGES. CAN I JUST 
     TELL YOU, THANK YOU SO, SO, SO MUCH.

  When asked about her efforts to overturn the 2020 election, Ginni 
Thomas told Congress that she and Justice Thomas just don't discuss 
each other's work. That is a little hard to believe, isn't it, when you 
see the missive that she sent to this organization.
  Her comments on behalf of judges create a clear appearance of 
impropriety for Justice Clarence Thomas. Accordingly, I have called for 
Justice Thomas to recuse himself from any future case involving First 
Liberty Institute.
  This is not the first time that Ginni Thomas's actions have raised 
serious questions about her husband, Justice Clarence Thomas's ability 
to fairly hear cases before the Supreme Court.
  Ginni Thomas is a political operative who regularly works with 
rightwing groups on issues being litigated before the Court, and it 
isn't volunteer work in many instances. She is a political operative 
who works with these groups that litigate issues before the Supreme 
Court, before her husband Clarence Thomas.
  Federal law requires the disqualification of a Supreme Court Justice 
in any proceeding in which the Justice's impartiality might reasonably 
be questioned, and the Supreme Court's own

[[Page S5905]]

code of conduct reiterates that Supreme Court Justices should 
disqualify themselves in cases when there is reasonable doubt about 
impartiality.
  Despite serious questions about Justice Thomas's impartiality in 
numerous cases, he refuses to recuse himself. During the Court's most 
recent term, he continued to hear cases related to the January 6 
insurrection despite Ginni Thomas's--his wife--personal involvement 
with efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
  Justice Thomas's failure to recuse is not his only ethical failure 
related to his wife's activities. For years, Justice Thomas omitted his 
wife's income from the rightwing Heritage Foundation from his annual 
financial disclosures despite having disclosed her income in some 
previous years. In other words, he wasn't even consistent.
  As I mentioned earlier, Justice Thomas's ethical issues extend far 
beyond his wife's employment and advocacy. He has repeatedly violated 
Federal law by failing to report gifts and income from a wide range of 
sources in his financial disclosures. How do we know this about Justice 
Clarence Thomas? Because the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to 
authorize subpoenas, and the subpoena authorization resulted in 
cooperation from some of the people who gave him these gifts. They gave 
us the details of what they provided in the past and he failed to 
disclose over and over again. He has compounded that failure by 
repeatedly failing to recuse himself in cases involving the same 
individuals and groups lavishing these gifts upon him. I get it. They 
are sending these gifts to Clarence Thomas, who is sitting as a judge 
in cases that mean a lot to them monetarily.
  More than 12 years ago--12 years ago--I called on Chief Justice 
Roberts to adopt a binding code of conduct for all Supreme Court 
Justices--12 years ago. Since then, repeated ethical misconduct by 
Supreme Court Justices has proven that an unenforceable code of conduct 
is absolutely worthless and an enforceable one is essential to 
restoring the public confidence. However, Chief Justice Roberts refuses 
to use his power to do so. What is he waiting for?
  I call on each and every Supreme Court Justice: If you agree with 
Clarence Thomas, declare it, that you have no responsibility to 
disclose your gifts or to recuse yourself from cases where there is a 
conflict, but if you think you are fed up with the reputation of the 
Court that lacks integrity and you want to do something about it, speak 
up publicly on behalf of the Court and on behalf of the Nation.
  We will continue, in Congress, to do our part, but some leadership 
from Chief Justice Roberts and members of the Court could sure make a 
difference.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Padilla). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes and Senator Hoeven be permitted 
to speak up to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOEVEN. I ask unanimous consent to use a prop during my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.