118 HRES 1353 IH: Impeaching Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
U.S. House of Representatives
2024-07-10
text/xml
EN
Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.
IV
118th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. RES. 1353
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 10, 2024
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez (for herself, Ms. Escobar, Ms. Crockett, Mr. Frost, Ms. Stansbury, Mr. Casar, Mr. Bowman, Ms. Lee of California, Ms. Omar, Mrs. Ramirez, Mr. Takano, Ms. Tlaib, Ms. Velázquez, Mrs. Watson Coleman, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. McCollum, Mr. McGovern, Ms. Bush, and Ms. Wilson of Florida) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
RESOLUTION
Impeaching Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
That Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:
Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Article I: Failure to disclose
The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment” and that all civil officers of the United States “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. Sections 13103 and 13104 of title 5, United States Code, require judicial officers, including Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, to file annual reports disclosing financial income, gifts and reimbursements, property interests, liabilities, transactions, among other information. Specifically, section 13104(a)(2)(A) of such title requires disclosure of the “identity of the source, a brief description, and the value of all gifts” exceeding minimal value, and section 13104(a)(5)(A) of such title requires disclosure of “a brief description, the date, and category of value of any purchase, sale or exchange” of real property exceeding $1,000.
Clarence Thomas, in his conduct as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors, by refusing to report the source, description, and value of gifts, and by failing to report the description, date, and category of his sale of real estate property, as follows:
Over the course of at least 15 years, Justice Thomas and his wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, have received gifts of significant value from Harlan Crow without reporting the source, description, and value of such gifts.
Throughout such time, Mr. Crow has served on the Board of Directors of the American Enterprise Institute, which regularly files amicus briefs in Supreme Court cases and whose position Justice Thomas has regularly adopted.
The unreported gifts include, but are not limited to: non-commercial transportation on a private airplane and on a yacht to and from Indonesia in 2019, valued at approximately $500,000; non-commercial transportation on a yacht to and around New Zealand in or around 2013; non-commercial transportation on a yacht to and around Greece in 2007; extensive free lodging and food at Topridge, a resort in the Adirondacks owned by a company owned or controlled by Mr. Crow; multiple trips via non-commercial transportation on a private airplane on multiple occasions, including but not limited to flights to New Haven, Connecticut, in 2016, to Dallas, Texas, in 2018 and again in 2022, to New York City in 2021, and to Topridge Resort in New York in 2022; and tuition payments, in excess of $6,000 per month, to two private boarding schools for Justice Thomas’s grandnephew while his grandnephew lived with Justice Thomas and was in Justice Thomas’s legal custody.
Justice Thomas failed to disclose the 2014 sale of a single-story home and two vacant lots previously held by Justice Thomas and two family members, to Mr. Crow for $133,363, an amount significantly higher than the price of other properties in the neighborhood and significantly higher than $15,000, the amount that Justice Thomas valued his one-third stake in the properties in 2010. Mr. Crow has also permitted Justice Thomas’s mother to continue living in the home rent-free through at least May 2023, and has paid for improvements for the benefit of Justice Thomas’s mother, including construction of a car port. In 2023, Justice Thomas retroactively amended his 2014 report to report the real estate sales transactions involving Mr. Crow, but to date Justice Thomas has yet to disclose both the free rent and the improvements that constitute additional gifts that Justice Thomas was required, but failed, to disclose.
By accepting but failing to disclose multiple gifts of luxury vacations and travel, Justice Thomas has undermined the impartiality and integrity of the Supreme Court in violation of the public trust. His conduct has caused a reasonable person to believe the gifts were offered and accepted in return for being influenced in the performance of an official act and from the same or different sources on a basis so frequent that a reasonable person would believe that he used his public office for his own private gain or for the private gain of his donors.
In all of this, Justice Thomas has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, Justice Thomas, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

Article II: Refusal to Recuse From Matters Involving His Spouse’s Financial Interest
The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment” and that all civil officers of the United States “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. Section 455 of title 28, United States Code, provides that “[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned”.
Clarence Thomas, in his conduct as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors, by refusing to disqualify himself from proceedings in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, as follows:
Justice Thomas participated in the consideration and decision of numerous proceedings concerning entities in which his spouse, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, had a financial interest.
In 2011, Harlan Crow contributed $500,000 to Liberty Central, an organization founded by Mrs. Thomas and which, in 2010, paid Mrs. Thomas a salary of $120,000. Before, during, and after this contribution, Mr. Crow has served on the Board of Directors of the American Enterprise Institute, which regularly files amicus briefs in Supreme Court cases and whose position Justice Thomas has regularly adopted.
Between June 2011 and June 2012, Mrs. Thomas's firm, Liberty Consulting, received at least $80,000 in consulting fees as part of an arrangement devised by Leonard Leo. Mr. Leo advises a nonprofit called the Judicial Education Project, now known as The 85 Fund, which regularly files briefs before the Supreme Court, including in 2012. The details of the payment plan were specifically crafted to avoid listing Mrs. Thomas’s name on any paperwork that might become public. Mr. Leo instructed a for-profit firm, The Polling Company, to act as an intermediary by billing the Judicial Education Project, and then transmitting those funds to Liberty Consulting.
In consequence of Mrs. Thomas’s financial interest and compensation from entities that regularly file briefs before the Supreme Court, or from donors that fund such entities, Justice Thomas had a legal obligation under section 455 of title 28, United States Code, to disqualify himself from proceedings in which those entities participated. Yet on multiple occasions, Justice Thomas participated in such proceedings anyway. By flagrantly violating Federal ethics law, Justice Thomas betrayed his Judicial Oath to “faithfully and impartially discharge and perform” his duties “under the Constitution and laws of the United States”.
In all of this, Justice Thomas has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, Justice Thomas, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

Article III: Refusal to Recuse From Matters Concerning His Spouse’s Legal Interest
The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment” and that all civil officers of the United States “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. Section 455 of title 28, United States Code, provides that “[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned”.
Clarence Thomas, in his conduct as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors, by refusing to disqualify himself from proceedings in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, as follows:
Justice Thomas participated in the consideration and decision of numerous proceedings concerning challenges to the outcome of the 2020 Presidential election in which his spouse, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, had an interest.
For instance, Justice Thomas participated in the consideration and decision of two cases in which Texas and the Republican Party of Pennsylvania, respectively, sought to induce the Federal judiciary to throw out the lawful ballots of thousands of Pennsylvania voters. Not only did Justice Thomas vote to advance these factually baseless and legally frivolous claims, but he also abused his seat on our Nation’s highest court to promote the falsehood of massive voter fraud and to question the legitimacy of the 2020 Presidential election results. Texas v. Pennsylvania, 592 U.S. ____ (2021) (Dec. 11, 2020) (No. 155, Orig.) (Alito, J., dissenting from denial of leave to file bill of complaint, joined by Thomas, J.); Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Degraffenreid, 592 U.S. ____ (2021) (Thomas, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari). Justice Thomas also participated in the consideration and decision of proceedings concerning the insurrection at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021—proceedings in which Mrs. Thomas had an interest.
On December 23, 2021, Donald Trump submitted an emergency application for a stay and an injunction to Chief Justice John G. Roberts, seeking to prevent the National Archives from releasing records concerning Mr. Trump’s attempt to overturn his defeat in the 2020 Presidential election to the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. Chief Justice Roberts referred Mr. Trump’s application to the full Supreme Court. These records included communications by White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. Because Mr. Meadows had been texting with Mrs. Thomas on or around January 6, 2021, it is possible that these records included texts between the two of them.
On January 19, 2022, the Court denied Mr. Trump’s application—refusing to block the release of the records. Trump v. Thompson, 595 U. S. ____ (2022) (Jan. 19, 2022) (No. 21–272). Not only did Justice Thomas take part in the consideration and decision of that proceeding, but Justice Thomas was the only justice who indicated that he would have voted to grant Mr. Trump’s application.
As part of that same litigation, Mr. Trump petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, asking the Court to reverse the decision below refusing to enjoin the National Archives from turning over these records to the Select Committee. The Court denied Mr. Trump’s petition. Trump v. Thompson, 595 U.S. ____ (Feb. 22, 2022) (No. 21–932). Again, Justice Thomas participated in the consideration and decision of this proceeding.
Justice Thomas’s impartiality in the aforementioned proceedings might reasonably be questioned because Mrs. Thomas actively participated in contemporaneous political and legal efforts to overturn Mr. Trump’s defeat in the 2020 Presidential election. Indeed, Mrs. Thomas’s interest in the outcome of these proceedings thoroughly compromised Justice Thomas’s impartiality in any case challenging the results of the 2020 Presidential election or concerning the events of January 6, 2021.
In the weeks between the Presidential election on November 7, 2020, and the violent insurrection at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, Mrs. Thomas repeatedly urged then-President Trump to illegally overturn the election results and advised Mr. Trump on his litigation strategy, including in an exchange of at least 29 text messages about the election with White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows:
Mrs. Thomas advised the President to initiate and sustain political, legal, and extralegal attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 Presidential election (writing, “Do not concede”; “The majority knows Biden and the Left is attempting the greatest Heist of our History”; “save us from the left taking America down”).
Mrs. Thomas advised then-President Trump on discrete litigation decisions, for instance, urging him to promote and retain Sidney Powell as his lead attorney on these matters (writing, “Don’t let her and your assets be marginalized instead . . . help her be the lead and the face”; “Sounds like Sidney and her team are getting inundated with evidence of fraud. Make a plan. Release the Kraken”).
Mrs. Thomas advised then-President Trump’s Chief of Staff on how to manage the President’s legal team, for instance, directing him to confer with and defer to particular attorneys and advisors (writing, “listen to . . . Cleta”) and to improve their morale (writing, “Suggestion: You need to buck up your team on the inside, Mark”); Mrs. Thomas liaised between the White House, the President’s personal legal team, and other possible participants in the President’s attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 Presidential election, like Jared Kushner and the office of Representative Louie Gohmert (writing, “Just forwarded to y[ou]r gmail an email I sent Jared this am. Sidney Powell [and] improved coordination now will help the cavalry come and Fraud exposed and America saved.”); and, Mrs. Thomas advised the President to pursue his unlawful aims by any means necessary, suggesting that he disregard his legal and ethical obligations in the pursuit of the aims of the attempt to overturn the election (writing, “the most important thing you can realize right now is that there are no rules in war”).
Throughout this exchange, the President’s Chief of Staff engaged with and embraced Mrs. Thomas’s legal and political advice—confirming Mrs. Thomas’s status as a trusted participant in these decisions.
When Justice Thomas participated in the consideration and decision of the aforementioned cases concerning the 2020 Presidential election and the insurrection at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, he knew or should have known of his spouse’s participation in the attempt to overturn the results of that election.
Mrs. Thomas implied to others that she had told Justice Thomas herself. After the White House Chief of Staff urged Mrs. Thomas to maintain her commitment to this “fight of good versus evil” (that is, overturning the results of the 2020 Presidential election), she replied that she was encouraged by “a conversation with my best friend just now”—using a phrase (“best friend”) that she and Justice Thomas publicly use to refer to one another.
Even if Mrs. Thomas did not directly inform Justice Thomas of her participation, much of Mrs. Thomas’s work to overturn the results of the election was a matter of public record as she performed it: planning the January 6, 2021 “Stop the Steal” rally as one of just nine members of the board of Council for National Policy Action, attending that rally, and signing a public letter alongside prominent far-right leaders urging House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy to expel two House Republicans in retaliation for their service on the Select Committee investigating the insurrection.
In the exceedingly unlikely event that Justice Thomas was unaware that his spouse was privately and publicly working to overturn the results of the 2020 Presidential election, he was derelict in his legal and ethical duties to know. Federal law required him to make a reasonable effort to discover a fact so obviously relevant to his role as one of the final arbiters of litigation about the election: section 455(c) of title 28, United States Code, is explicit that Justice Thomas had a duty to “inform himself” of his spouse’s interests.
In consequence of Mrs. Thomas’s collaboration with then-President Trump to overturn the results of the 2020 Presidential election, Justice Thomas had a legal obligation under section 455 of title 28, United States Code, to disqualify himself from proceedings concerning that election and the endeavor to overturn it by litigation, force, or fraud. Yet on multiple occasions, Justice Thomas participated in proceedings concerning the election anyway. By flagrantly violating Federal ethics law, Justice Thomas betrayed his Judicial Oath to “faithfully and impartially discharge and perform” his duties “under the Constitution and laws of the United States”.
In all of this, Justice Thomas has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, Justice Thomas, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.