Democrat lawmakers are demanding that conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas recuse himself from an upcoming case centered on former President Donald Trump’s claim that he enjoys presidential immunity from prosecution.
Democrats are concerned that if President Trump secures a win on presidential immunity, criminal cases pending against him in the District of Columbia, New York, Florida, and Georgia could be slowed down or even thrown out.
The case is United States v. Trump.
The prosecution is taking place in federal district court in the nation’s capital before Judge Tanya Chutkan, who was appointed in 2014 by Democrat President Barack Obama. The Supreme Court ordered President Trump to respond to Mr. Smith’s petition by 4 p.m. on Dec. 20.
President Trump is scheduled to go on trial on March 4, 2024, in Washington on four felony counts of attempting to subvert the electoral process. Super Tuesday, when about one-third of delegates will be elected to presidential nominating conventions, is March 5.
In a pre-trial ruling on Dec. 1, Judge Chutkan dismissed the immunity claim.
“Whatever immunities a sitting president may enjoy, the United States has only one chief executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass,” she wrote.
President Trump filed an appeal of the decision with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Dec. 7.
Moreover, President Trump’s appeal to the D.C. Circuit “suspends the trial of the charges against him.”
“It is of imperative public importance that [President Trump’s] claims of immunity be resolved by this Court and that [his] trial proceed as promptly as possible if his claim of immunity is rejected.
“[President Trump’s] claims are profoundly mistaken, as the district court held. But only this Court can definitively resolve them,” the petition said.
Mr. Smith specifically asked the Supreme Court to consider “[w]hether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin.”
A longtime antagonist of Justice Thomas, who was appointed in 1991 by Republican President George H.W. Bush, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), explained why he wanted the recusal in comments reported by The Hill newspaper.
“There are so many unanswered questions about the relationship of the justice and his family with the Trump administration that I think in the interests of justice, he should recuse himself,” Mr. Durbin said.
He said he was “of course” concerned that the conservative-dominated Supreme Court, to which President Trump named three justices, could rule that he was immune from prosecution in the D.C. and Florida cases brought by Mr. Smith or in the other election interference case brought by Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis (D).
“If we say certain people are above the law, I believe it diminishes values in this country,” the senator said.
Mr. Durbin and other Democratic members of the Senate reportedly have been increasing pressure on Justice Thomas to step aside in the Supreme Court case because they don’t think Chief Justice John Roberts, who was appointed by Republican President George W. Bush in 2005, will enforce recusal guidelines on the court.
Dislikes Court’s Conduct Code
The senator has expressed dissatisfaction with the new code of conduct that the Supreme Court unveiled on Nov. 13, saying it lacks teeth because it allows the court to police itself.The bill Mr. Durbin referred to is the proposed Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act (SCERT) of 2023 (S.359), which his committee narrowly approved on a party-line vote on July 20. It is unclear when or if the Senate will take up the legislation, which would have difficulty passing the House of Representatives if it clears the Senate.
Democrats are angry about several ethical lapses allegedly committed by Justice Thomas.
They have complained at length about wealthy Republican donor Harlan Crow’s gifts to his close friend, Justice Thomas, including luxurious vacations, tuition support for a grandnephew he raised, and that he purchased low-dollar real estate from the justice’s family.
Justice Thomas didn’t disclose the events originally, saying he was advised that it wasn’t required, but has vowed to disclose such events going forward.
The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 11-10 on party lines on Nov. 30 to subpoena Mr. Crow as part of its investigation into gifts and personal hospitality provided to members of the nation’s highest court.
Also subpoenaed was Leonard Leo, chairman of The Federalist Society, a lawyers’ group that favors adherence to the Constitution and advocates for conservative, constitutionalist nominees for the bench.
GOP: It’s Political
Republicans have accused Democrats of abusing their power on the committee and of trying to delegitimize the Supreme Court because its conservative-leaning majority has issued decisions that Democrats don’t like.No evidence has been presented that Justice Thomas’s vote in any case has been influenced by Mr. Crow’s personal generosity.
In that case, the Supreme Court refused to take up the petition of former Trump attorney John Eastman, who was appealing a lower court’s decision that gave congressional investigators access to his emails as part of a probe into the former president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election result.
Mr. Eastman advised President Trump on legal strategy when the former president was contesting the election.
Justice Thomas’s recusal was reportedly the first time a Supreme Court justice has chosen to sit out a case related to the alleged election interference.
The U.S. Department of Justice refused to issue a statement about the Democrats’ demand that Justice Thomas absent himself from United States v. Trump.
Peter Carr, spokesman for special counsel Smith’s office, told The Epoch Times by email: “We will decline to comment.”
The Epoch Times has reached out to Justice Thomas for comment.
