Well-known for his controversial past, Justice Clarence Thomas has recently attracted attention not for scandal, but ethical conduct. Thomas identified an ethical dilemma, demonstrating insightful self-awareness of potential conflicts within his sphere.
Rather than engaging in luxurious trips, public speaking assignments, personal benefits, or accepting tuition payments for his children, Thomas’ ethical conduct concerns John Eastman, formerly his law clerk. Briefly summarised, Eastman, in association with Thomas’ wife, argued against the 2020 election results. When Eastman’s petition, linked to this endeavour, was denied certiorari by the Supreme Court, Justice Thomas refrained from participating in either considering or deciding the said petition. This happened despite being a tangential participant, intentionally keeping himself distanced from his wife’s questionable activities. The decision stating Thomas’ non-participation raised several eyebrows.
John Eastman’s history of involvement in this case is littered with errors. Evidences of a failed plot were traceable to his work email at Chapman University. Thus, the January 6 Select Committee easily acquired his communication records. Eastman, in response, sued Central District of California to thwart the school’s cooperation. However, Judge David Carter ruled most of the messages were not private, breaching crime-fraud exception basics.
Eastman then issued an emergency motion at the Ninth Circuit, simultaneously attempting to convince the Committee to ignore some documents in the interest of his appeal. His hopes were dashed when the Committee procured his emails. Further, Eastman’s attempts to bribe the Committee not to disclose the information fell flat.
Eastman’s subsequent attempt to seek the Ninth Circuit’s intervention was also denied as he failed to gain any judge’s agreement for a full en banc review and similar disapproval was shared by other court members. These events vaulted Eastman into precarious standings with legal entities and authorities in California and Georgia.
Justice Thomas’ act of abstaining could be seen as the bare minimum in his professional responsibilities, yet it marks a significant departure from his past conduct. As the world continues to watch, it will be quite interesting to see if this herald’s further changes.
For those interested in the original case, they can find it under Eastman v. Thompson on the SCOTUS Docket.
Based on a report by Above the Law written by Elizabeth Dye.