(NewsNation) — The Supreme Court has scheduled a special session to hear arguments over whether former President Donald Trump is ineligible to be president again and can be kept off the ballot. The case, to be argued Thursday, stems from a section of the 14th Amendment that’s meant to keep former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from regaining power.
Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife, Virginia Thomas, also known as Ginni, was among those supporting the effort to overturn the 2020 election. Ginni Thomas reportedly attended the “Stop the Steal” rally in Washington, D.C., advocating to overturn the election results.
She allegedly corresponded with White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, urging him to reverse the election outcome. Additionally, she purportedly contacted Republican legislators in Wisconsin and Arizona, advocating for intervention in the vote.
Furthermore, she is said to have communicated with John Eastman, a Trump-aligned lawyer involved in pressuring then-Vice President Mike Pence to block the certification of the 2020 election.
Despite this significant involvement, Justice Thomas recused himself from only one case related to January 6, raising questions about his impartiality in cases involving his wife’s actions.
NewsNation’s Dan Abrams argues that Justice Thomas’s wife’s actions test the Supreme Court’s ethics code, which emphasizes the need for impartiality and recusal when a justice’s spouse has an interest substantially affected by the case’s outcome.
Abrams contends that Thomas’ wife’s active participation in election-related matters should warrant his recusal.
In response, legal expert John Malcolm argued against characterizing Ginni Thomas’ actions as leading an effort to overturn the election. Malcolm contended that Ginni Thomas, like millions of others, believed the election was stolen and exercised her right to express her opinions.
“Under the Supreme Court, they go by the rule of necessity, which is that it has to be crystal clear that one of the justices has to recuse because they can’t be replaced.” He pointed out that Ginni Thomas’ involvement did not meet the criteria for recusal of Justice Thomas from cases related to the election, citing legal standards and lack of substantial interest in case outcomes.
Abrams challenged Malcolm’s stance, asserting that federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, should prioritize avoiding even the perception of bias. He raised concerns about the potential impact on public trust in the legal system, emphasizing the need for transparency and impartiality.