Congressman Dan Goldman Joins Courts Subcommittee Ranking Member Hank Johnson, Court Reform Now Task Force to Demand Justice Samuel Alito Recuse from Upcoming January 6 Cases
Letter Follows Recent Reporting Describing Display of ‘Stop the Steal’ Symbol at Justice Alito’s Residence
Participation in Political Activity Prohibited by Supreme Court Ethics Guidance, Public Displays of Political Views Prohibited by Supreme Court Employee Guidelines
Read the Letter Here
Washington, DC – Congressman Dan Goldman (NY-10) today joined Courts Subcommittee Ranking Member Hank Johnson (GA-04) on behalf of the newly announced Court Reform Now Task Force in leading 43 House colleagues in sending a letter to Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito urging him to recuse himself from any upcoming Supreme Court cases dealing with the events on and surrounding January 6 and the 2020 presidential election. This request follows a recent report describing the display of an upside-down American flag – a ‘Stop the Steal’ symbol – at his residence less than two weeks after the January 6 attack on the United States Capitol.
The lawmakers urge Justice Alito to immediately recuse himself from two upcoming January 6 cases. The first of these cases is United States of America v. Donald J. Trump, in which former President Donald Trump is charged with conspiring to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election, conspiring to obstruct the certification of the electoral vote, and actually obstructing the certification of the electoral vote. The second is Fischer v. United States, in which the Supreme Court is deciding if January 6 rioters could be charged with obstruction of Congress.
“Today, we are compelled to request that you recuse yourself from any further participation in the cases of Trump v. United States, Fischer v. United States, and any other cases that may arise from the events surrounding January 6 or the 2020 election,” the lawmakers wrote. “A New York Times report revealed that on and around January 17, 2021, between the January 6 insurrection and the inauguration of President Biden, an inverted United States flag was photographed flying from the front lawn of your personal residence. You have acknowledged that the photograph is accurate, and the inverted flag was hung at your house in response to a political statement from a neighbor.
It is incontrovertible that at the time the upside down flag flew from your front lawn, “Stop the Steal” activists had adopted the inverted flag as their symbol of protest. Their belief that widespread election fraud had thrown the election from former President Trump to then President-Elect Biden has never been supported by any evidence.”
Under current Supreme Court ethics guidance, Supreme Court Justices may not participate in political activity. Furthermore, employee guidelines, which govern every employee of the Supreme Court regardless of their role, prohibit all public displays of political views – such as an upside-down flag like the one hung at the Alito residence – to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.
This letter follows a similar request to Justice Clarence Thomas, calling on him to recuse himself from ruling on United States of America v. Donald J. Trump due to his wife’s intimate involvement in the planning of the January 6 attack on the Capitol. Justice Thomas has already recused himself from an appeal by ex-Trump lawyer John Eastman in a case on the January 6 insurrection.
“Sadly, you are now the second justice who has demonstrated at least an appearance of a conflict of interest related to the events surrounding the January 6 insurrection. In the aftermath of the 2020 election, text messages revealed that Virginia ‘Ginni’ Thomas, the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, was actively strategizing with the White House chief of staff about how to overturn the election results and attending the January 6 “Stop the Steal” rally — precisely the same underlying conduct charged in Trump and Fischer. Although Justice Thomas seemingly acknowledged this conflict of interest by recusing himself from the Court’s case related to Trump attorney John Eastman, he has shockingly refused to recuse himself from Trump and Fischer,” the lawmakers continued.
Following recent reporting of ethical lapses from Supreme Court Justices, public trust in the Court has eroded. Earlier this year it was revealed that Justice Thomas failed to disclose gifts and travel from political activist Harlan Crow with at least one trip valued at over $500,000. Reports have also revealed that Crow bought properties from Justice Thomas and his relatives for at least double what Justice Thomas had said those properties were worth. Justice Thomas’ family received up to $750,000 in income yearly from a firm that has not existed since 2006.
It was also reported that Justice Alito accepted extravagant gifts from major conservative donors including Paul Singer, a hedge fund billionaire who has repeatedly asked the Court to rule on his business dealings. The allegations that Justice Alito accepted a paid-for vacation that totaled hundreds of thousands of dollars from Leonard Leo, who had recently played a significant role in Justice Alito’s confirmation process, further serve to undermine the legitimacy of the court.
“Undoubtedly, public trust and confidence in the Supreme Court is in shambles, which jeopardizes our democracy and the Rule of Law upon which it is based. And given that your decisions in Trump and Fischer will profoundly affect the future of a past and potentially future President, and of democracy itself, it is essential that the Court attempt to bolster the public’s trust in the integrity of the Court. Thus, given your voluntary agreement to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ethics guidelines, and most importantly, in order to protect the legitimacy of the Court’s ultimate decision in these historic cases, it is clear that both you and Justice Thomas must recuse yourselves from participating any further in these, or any other cases, related to January 6 or the 2020 election,” the lawmakers concluded.
Other signatories include Representatives Balint (VT-AL), Barragán (CA-44), Boyle (PA-02), Bush (MO-01), Casten (IL-06), Cohen (TN-09), Crockett (TX-30), Davis (IL-07), Dean (PA-04), DeSaulnier (CA-10), Doggett (TX-37), Escobar (TX-16), Espaillat (NY-13), Frost (FL-10), García (IL-04), Garcia (TX-29), Grijalva (AZ-07), Ivey (MD-04), Jackson Lee (TX-18), Jayapal (WA-07), Kildee (MI-08), Lee (CA-12), Lieu (CA-36), McClellan (VA-04), Norton (DC-AL), Pingree (ME-01), Pocan (WI-02), Pressley (MA-07), Ramirez (IL-03), Raskin (MD-08), Ross (NC-02), Salinas (OR-06), Schakowsky (IL-09), Schiff (CA-30), Sherrill (NJ-11), Stansbury (NM-01), Swalwell (CA-14), Tlaib (MI-12), Tokuda (HI-02), Tonko (NY-20), Watson Coleman (NJ-12), Williams (GA-05), and Wilson (FL-24).
Congressman Dan Goldman has repeatedly called on Chief Justice John Roberts to establish an ethics counsel within Supreme Court to standardize ethics procedures, advise justices on ethical issues, and prevent ethical misjudgements.
Congressman Goldman is also a cosponsor of the 'Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency (SCERT) Act' and the 'Judicial Ethics and Anti-Corruption Act' to formally establish a code of conduct for Supreme Court Justices.
Read the full letter here or below:
Dear Justice Alito:
Today, we are compelled to request that you recuse yourself from any further participation in the cases of Trump v. United States, Fischer v. United States, and any other cases that may arise from the events surrounding January 6 or the 2020 election. A New York Times report revealed that on and around January 17, 2021, between the January 6 insurrection and the inauguration of President Biden, an inverted United States flag was photographed flying from the front lawn of your personal residence. You have acknowledged that the photograph is accurate, and the inverted flag was hung at your house in response to a political statement from a neighbor.
It is incontrovertible that at the time the upside down flag flew from your front lawn, “Stop the Steal” activists had adopted the inverted flag as their symbol of protest. Their belief that widespread election fraud had thrown the election from former President Trump to then President-Elect Biden has never been supported by any evidence.
United States Code Title 4 Section 8(a) mandates that “The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.” No such dire distress was in existence at the time the inverted flag flew from your front yard. Indeed, your own public statement attempts to pass responsibility to your wife, but you nonetheless acknowledge that it was a political statement in support of Donald Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election. Even if you had “no involvement” in the display yourself, the fact of such a political statement at your home creates, at minimum, the appearance of improper political bias. According to Canon 5 of the recently promulgated, non-binding, non-enforceable U.S. Supreme Court ethics guidelines, on which you are listed as a signatory, a Justice “should refrain from political activity.” In fact, the Court’s own employee guidelines explicitly prohibit public displays of political views – including yard signs and bumper stickers — because they create an appearance of a conflict of interest.
Canon 2 of the Court’s ethics guidelines states that “a Justice should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.” More prescriptively, in Canon 3B, the guidelines declare that “a Justice should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the Justice’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, that is, where an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant circumstances would doubt that the Justice could fairly discharge his or her duties.” The guidelines detail such instances, including those in which “The Justice has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.”
Currently, there are two cases before the Court involving January 6 rioters and the felony charge of obstructing an official proceeding: the former president’s claim that a president of the United States has absolute criminal immunity for any official acts (Trump v. United States), and another case involving January 6 rioters (Fischer v. United States). Reasonable people will doubt that you can be impartial in deciding whether Mr. Trump should face criminal prosecution forhis actions arising from the “Stop the Steal” movement. Accordingly, this indisputable appearance of a conflict of interest requires that you recuse yourself from these two cases.
Sadly, you are now the second justice who has demonstrated at least an appearance of a conflict of interest related to the events surrounding the January 6 insurrection. In the aftermath of the 2020 election, text messages revealed that Virginia ‘Ginni’ Thomas, the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, was actively strategizing with the White House chief of staff about how to overturn the election results and attending the January 6 “Stop the Steal” rally — precisely the same underlying conduct charged in Trump and Fischer. Although Justice Thomas seemingly acknowledged this conflict of interest by recusing himself from the Court’s case related to Trump attorney John Eastman, he has shockingly refused to recuse himself from Trump and Fischer.
Undoubtedly, public trust and confidence in the Supreme Court is in shambles, which jeopardizes our democracy and the Rule of Law upon which it is based. And given that your decisions in Trump and Fischer will profoundly affect the future of a past and potentially future President, and of democracy itself, it is essential that the Court attempt to bolster the public’s trust in the integrity of the Court. Thus, given your voluntary agreement to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ethics guidelines, and most importantly, in order to protect the legitimacy of the Court’s ultimate decision in these historic cases, it is clear that both you and Justice Thomas must recuse yourselves from participating any further in these, or any other cases, related to January 6 or the 2020 election.
###