IV 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1353 

Impeaching Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of 

the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors. 

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. VELA ́ZQUEZ, 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. 

1 Resolved, That Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice of 

2 the Supreme Court of the United States, is impeached for 

3 high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following arti4 cles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States 

5 Senate: 

6 Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of 

7 Representatives of the United States of America in the 

8 name of itself and of the people of the United States of 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1353 IH 

1 America, against Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice of 

2 the Supreme Court of the United States, in maintenance 

3 and support of its impeachment against him for high 

4 crimes and misdemeanors. 

5 ARTICLE I: FAILURE TO DISCLOSE

6

7 The Constitution provides that the House of Rep8 resentatives ‘‘shall have the sole Power of Impeachment’’ 

9 and that all civil officers of the United States ‘‘shall be 

10 removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction 

11 of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Mis12 demeanors’’. Sections 13103 and 13104 of title 5, United 

13 States Code, require judicial officers, including Associate 

14 Justices of the Supreme Court, to file annual reports dis15 closing financial income, gifts and reimbursements, prop16 erty interests, liabilities, transactions, among other infor17 mation. Specifically, section 13104(a)(2)(A) of such title 

18 requires disclosure of the ‘‘identity of the source, a brief 

19 description, and the value of all gifts’’ exceeding minimal 

20 value, and section 13104(a)(5)(A) of such title requires 

21 disclosure of ‘‘a brief description, the date, and category 

22 of value of any purchase, sale or exchange’’ of real prop23 erty exceeding $1,000. 

24 Clarence Thomas, in his conduct as an Associate Jus25 tice of the Supreme Court of the United States, engaged 

26 in high crimes and misdemeanors, by refusing to report 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 1353 IH 

1 the source, description, and value of gifts, and by failing 

2 to report the description, date, and category of his sale 

3 of real estate property, as follows: 

4 Over the course of at least 15 years, Justice Thomas 

5 and his wife, Virginia ‘‘Ginni’’ Thomas, have received gifts 

6 of significant value from Harlan Crow without reporting 

7 the source, description, and value of such gifts. 

8 Throughout such time, Mr. Crow has served on the 

9 Board of Directors of the American Enterprise Institute, 

10 which regularly files amicus briefs in Supreme Court cases 

11 and whose position Justice Thomas has regularly adopted. 

12 The unreported gifts include, but are not limited to: 

13 non-commercial transportation on a private airplane and 

14 on a yacht to and from Indonesia in 2019, valued at ap15 proximately $500,000; non-commercial transportation on 

16 a yacht to and around New Zealand in or around 2013; 

17 non-commercial transportation on a yacht to and around 

18 Greece in 2007; extensive free lodging and food at 

19 Topridge, a resort in the Adirondacks owned by a com20 pany owned or controlled by Mr. Crow; multiple trips via 

21 non-commercial transportation on a private airplane on 

22 multiple occasions, including but not limited to flights to 

23 New Haven, Connecticut, in 2016, to Dallas, Texas, in 

24 2018 and again in 2022, to New York City in 2021, and 

25 to Topridge Resort in New York in 2022; and tuition payVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:55 Jul 11, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR1353.IH HR1353

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
4 

•HRES 1353 IH 

1 ments, in excess of $6,000 per month, to two private 

2 boarding schools for Justice Thomas’s grandnephew while 

3 his grandnephew lived with Justice Thomas and was in 

4 Justice Thomas’s legal custody. 

5 Justice Thomas failed to disclose the 2014 sale of a 

6 single-story home and two vacant lots previously held by 

7 Justice Thomas and two family members, to Mr. Crow for 

8 $133,363, an amount significantly higher than the price 

9 of other properties in the neighborhood and significantly 

10 higher than $15,000, the amount that Justice Thomas 

11 valued his one-third stake in the properties in 2010. Mr. 

12 Crow has also permitted Justice Thomas’s mother to con13 tinue living in the home rent-free through at least May 

14 2023, and has paid for improvements for the benefit of 

15 Justice Thomas’s mother, including construction of a car 

16 port. In 2023, Justice Thomas retroactively amended his 

17 2014 report to report the real estate sales transactions 

18 involving Mr. Crow, but to date Justice Thomas has yet 

19 to disclose both the free rent and the improvements that 

20 constitute additional gifts that Justice Thomas was re21 quired, but failed, to disclose. 

22 By accepting but failing to disclose multiple gifts of 

23 luxury vacations and travel, Justice Thomas has under24 mined the impartiality and integrity of the Supreme Court 

25 in violation of the public trust. His conduct has caused 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
5 

•HRES 1353 IH 

1 a reasonable person to believe the gifts were offered and 

2 accepted in return for being influenced in the performance 

3 of an official act and from the same or different sources 

4 on a basis so frequent that a reasonable person would be5 lieve that he used his public office for his own private gain 

6 or for the private gain of his donors. 

7 In all of this, Justice Thomas has acted in a manner 

8 contrary to his trust as an Associate Justice of the Su9 preme Court of the United States, to the great prejudice 

10 of the cause of law and justice, to the manifest injury of 

11 the people of the United States. 

12 Wherefore, Justice Thomas, by such conduct, war13 rants impeachment and trial and removal from office, and 

14 disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, 

15 trust, or profit under the United States. 

16 ARTICLE II: REFUSAL TO RECUSE FROM MATTERS

17 INVOLVING HIS SPOUSE’S FINANCIAL INTEREST

18

19 The Constitution provides that the House of Rep20 resentatives ‘‘shall have the sole Power of Impeachment’’ 

21 and that all civil officers of the United States ‘‘shall be 

22 removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction 

23 of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Mis24 demeanors’’. Section 455 of title 28, United States Code, 

25 provides that ‘‘[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate judge 

26 of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:55 Jul 11, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR1353.IH HR1353

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
6 

•HRES 1353 IH 

1 ceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be 

2 questioned’’. 

3 Clarence Thomas, in his conduct as an Associate Jus4 tice of the Supreme Court of the United States, engaged 

5 in high crimes and misdemeanors, by refusing to dis6 qualify himself from proceedings in which his impartiality 

7 might reasonably be questioned, as follows: 

8 Justice Thomas participated in the consideration and 

9 decision of numerous proceedings concerning entities in 

10 which his spouse, Virginia ‘‘Ginni’’ Thomas, had a finan11 cial interest. 

12 In 2011, Harlan Crow contributed $500,000 to Lib13 erty Central, an organization founded by Mrs. Thomas 

14 and which, in 2010, paid Mrs. Thomas a salary of 

15 $120,000. Before, during, and after this contribution, Mr. 

16 Crow has served on the Board of Directors of the Amer17 ican Enterprise Institute, which regularly files amicus 

18 briefs in Supreme Court cases and whose position Justice 

19 Thomas has regularly adopted. 

20 Between June 2011 and June 2012, Mrs. Thomas’s 

21 firm, Liberty Consulting, received at least $80,000 in con22 sulting fees as part of an arrangement devised by Leonard 

23 Leo. Mr. Leo advises a nonprofit called the Judicial Edu24 cation Project, now known as The 85 Fund, which regu25 larly files briefs before the Supreme Court, including in 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
7 

•HRES 1353 IH 

1 2012. The details of the payment plan were specifically 

2 crafted to avoid listing Mrs. Thomas’s name on any paper3 work that might become public. Mr. Leo instructed a for4 profit firm, The Polling Company, to act as an inter5 mediary by billing the Judicial Education Project, and 

6 then transmitting those funds to Liberty Consulting. 

7 In consequence of Mrs. Thomas’s financial interest 

8 and compensation from entities that regularly file briefs 

9 before the Supreme Court, or from donors that fund such 

10 entities, Justice Thomas had a legal obligation under sec11 tion 455 of title 28, United States Code, to disqualify him12 self from proceedings in which those entities participated. 

13 Yet on multiple occasions, Justice Thomas participated in 

14 such proceedings anyway. By flagrantly violating Federal 

15 ethics law, Justice Thomas betrayed his Judicial Oath to 

16 ‘‘faithfully and impartially discharge and perform’’ his du17 ties ‘‘under the Constitution and laws of the United 

18 States’’. 

19 In all of this, Justice Thomas has acted in a manner 

20 contrary to his trust as an Associate Justice of the Su21 preme Court of the United States, to the great prejudice 

22 of the cause of law and justice, to the manifest injury of 

23 the people of the United States. 

24 Wherefore, Justice Thomas, by such conduct, war25 rants impeachment and trial and removal from office, and 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
8 

•HRES 1353 IH 

1 disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, 

2 trust, or profit under the United States. 

3 ARTICLE III: REFUSAL TO RECUSE FROM MATTERS

4 CONCERNING HIS SPOUSE’S LEGAL INTEREST

5

6 The Constitution provides that the House of Rep7 resentatives ‘‘shall have the sole Power of Impeachment’’ 

8 and that all civil officers of the United States ‘‘shall be 

9 removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction 

10 of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Mis11 demeanors’’. Section 455 of title 28, United States Code, 

12 provides that ‘‘[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate judge 

13 of the United States shall disqualify himself in any pro14 ceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be 

15 questioned’’. 

16 Clarence Thomas, in his conduct as an Associate Jus17 tice of the Supreme Court of the United States, engaged 

18 in high crimes and misdemeanors, by refusing to dis19 qualify himself from proceedings in which his impartiality 

20 might reasonably be questioned, as follows: 

21 Justice Thomas participated in the consideration and 

22 decision of numerous proceedings concerning challenges to 

23 the outcome of the 2020 Presidential election in which his 

24 spouse, Virginia ‘‘Ginni’’ Thomas, had an interest. 

25 For instance, Justice Thomas participated in the con26 sideration and decision of two cases in which Texas and 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
9 

•HRES 1353 IH 

1 the Republican Party of Pennsylvania, respectively, sought 

2 to induce the Federal judiciary to throw out the lawful 

3 ballots of thousands of Pennsylvania voters. Not only did 

4 Justice Thomas vote to advance these factually baseless 

5 and legally frivolous claims, but he also abused his seat 

6 on our Nation’s highest court to promote the falsehood 

7 of massive voter fraud and to question the legitimacy of 

8 the 2020 Presidential election results. Texas v. Pennsyl9 vania, 592 U.S. llll (2021) (Dec. 11, 2020) (No. 

10 155, Orig.) (Alito, J., dissenting from denial of leave to 

11 file bill of complaint, joined by Thomas, J.); Republican 

12 Party of Pennsylvania v. Degraffenreid, 592 U.S. 

13 llll (2021) (Thomas, J., dissenting from denial of 

14 certiorari). Justice Thomas also participated in the consid15 eration and decision of proceedings concerning the insur16 rection at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021— 

17 proceedings in which Mrs. Thomas had an interest. 

18 On December 23, 2021, Donald Trump submitted an 

19 emergency application for a stay and an injunction to 

20 Chief Justice John G. Roberts, seeking to prevent the Na21 tional Archives from releasing records concerning Mr. 

22 Trump’s attempt to overturn his defeat in the 2020 Presi23 dential election to the House Select Committee to Inves24 tigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Cap25 itol. Chief Justice Roberts referred Mr. Trump’s applicaVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:55 Jul 11, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR1353.IH HR1353

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
10 

•HRES 1353 IH 

1 tion to the full Supreme Court. These records included 

2 communications by White House Chief of Staff Mark 

3 Meadows. Because Mr. Meadows had been texting with 

4 Mrs. Thomas on or around January 6, 2021, it is possible 

5 that these records included texts between the two of them. 

6 On January 19, 2022, the Court denied Mr. Trump’s 

7 application—refusing to block the release of the records. 

8 Trump v. Thompson, 595 U. S. llll (2022) (Jan. 

9 19, 2022) (No. 21–272). Not only did Justice Thomas 

10 take part in the consideration and decision of that pro11 ceeding, but Justice Thomas was the only justice who indi12 cated that he would have voted to grant Mr. Trump’s ap13 plication. 

14 As part of that same litigation, Mr. Trump petitioned 

15 the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, asking the 

16 Court to reverse the decision below refusing to enjoin the 

17 National Archives from turning over these records to the 

18 Select Committee. The Court denied Mr. Trump’s peti19 tion. Trump v. Thompson, 595 U.S. llll (Feb. 22, 

20 2022) (No. 21–932). Again, Justice Thomas participated 

21 in the consideration and decision of this proceeding. 

22 Justice Thomas’s impartiality in the aforementioned 

23 proceedings might reasonably be questioned because Mrs. 

24 Thomas actively participated in contemporaneous political 

25 and legal efforts to overturn Mr. Trump’s defeat in the 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
11 

•HRES 1353 IH 

1 2020 Presidential election. Indeed, Mrs. Thomas’s interest 

2 in the outcome of these proceedings thoroughly com3 promised Justice Thomas’s impartiality in any case chal4 lenging the results of the 2020 Presidential election or 

5 concerning the events of January 6, 2021. 

6 In the weeks between the Presidential election on No7 vember 7, 2020, and the violent insurrection at the United 

8 States Capitol on January 6, 2021, Mrs. Thomas repeat9 edly urged then-President Trump to illegally overturn the 

10 election results and advised Mr. Trump on his litigation 

11 strategy, including in an exchange of at least 29 text mes12 sages about the election with White House Chief of Staff 

13 Mark Meadows: 

14 Mrs. Thomas advised the President to initiate and 

15 sustain political, legal, and extralegal attempts to overturn 

16 the results of the 2020 Presidential election (writing, ‘‘Do 

17 not concede’’; ‘‘The majority knows Biden and the Left 

18 is attempting the greatest Heist of our History’’; ‘‘save 

19 us from the left taking America down’’). 

20 Mrs. Thomas advised then-President Trump on dis21 crete litigation decisions, for instance, urging him to pro22 mote and retain Sidney Powell as his lead attorney on 

23 these matters (writing, ‘‘Don’t let her and your assets be 

24 marginalized instead . . . help her be the lead and the 

25 face’’; ‘‘Sounds like Sidney and her team are getting inunVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:55 Jul 11, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR1353.IH HR1353

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
12 

•HRES 1353 IH 

1 dated with evidence of fraud. Make a plan. Release the 

2 Kraken’’). 

3 Mrs. Thomas advised then-President Trump’s Chief 

4 of Staff on how to manage the President’s legal team, for 

5 instance, directing him to confer with and defer to par6 ticular attorneys and advisors (writing, ‘‘listen to . . . 

7 Cleta’’) and to improve their morale (writing, ‘‘Suggestion: 

8 You need to buck up your team on the inside, Mark’’); 

9 Mrs. Thomas liaised between the White House, the Presi10 dent’s personal legal team, and other possible participants 

11 in the President’s attempt to overturn the results of the 

12 2020 Presidential election, like Jared Kushner and the of13 fice of Representative Louie Gohmert (writing, ‘‘Just for14 warded to y[ou]r gmail an email I sent Jared this am. 

15 Sidney Powell [and] improved coordination now will help 

16 the cavalry come and Fraud exposed and America 

17 saved.’’); and, Mrs. Thomas advised the President to pur18 sue his unlawful aims by any means necessary, suggesting 

19 that he disregard his legal and ethical obligations in the 

20 pursuit of the aims of the attempt to overturn the election 

21 (writing, ‘‘the most important thing you can realize right 

22 now is that there are no rules in war’’). 

23 Throughout this exchange, the President’s Chief of 

24 Staff engaged with and embraced Mrs. Thomas’s legal and 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
13 

•HRES 1353 IH 

1 political advice—confirming Mrs. Thomas’s status as a 

2 trusted participant in these decisions. 

3 When Justice Thomas participated in the consider4 ation and decision of the aforementioned cases concerning 

5 the 2020 Presidential election and the insurrection at the 

6 United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, he knew or 

7 should have known of his spouse’s participation in the at8 tempt to overturn the results of that election. 

9 Mrs. Thomas implied to others that she had told Jus10 tice Thomas herself. After the White House Chief of Staff 

11 urged Mrs. Thomas to maintain her commitment to this 

12 ‘‘fight of good versus evil’’ (that is, overturning the results 

13 of the 2020 Presidential election), she replied that she was 

14 encouraged by ‘‘a conversation with my best friend just 

15 now’’—using a phrase (‘‘best friend’’) that she and Justice 

16 Thomas publicly use to refer to one another. 

17 Even if Mrs. Thomas did not directly inform Justice 

18 Thomas of her participation, much of Mrs. Thomas’s work 

19 to overturn the results of the election was a matter of pub20 lic record as she performed it: planning the January 6, 

21 2021 ‘‘Stop the Steal’’ rally as one of just nine members 

22 of the board of Council for National Policy Action, attend23 ing that rally, and signing a public letter alongside promi24 nent far-right leaders urging House Minority Leader 

25 Kevin McCarthy to expel two House Republicans in retalVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:55 Jul 11, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR1353.IH HR1353

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
14 

•HRES 1353 IH 

1 iation for their service on the Select Committee inves2 tigating the insurrection. 

3 In the exceedingly unlikely event that Justice Thomas 

4 was unaware that his spouse was privately and publicly 

5 working to overturn the results of the 2020 Presidential 

6 election, he was derelict in his legal and ethical duties to 

7 know. Federal law required him to make a reasonable ef8 fort to discover a fact so obviously relevant to his role as 

9 one of the final arbiters of litigation about the election: 

10 section 455(c) of title 28, United States Code, is explicit 

11 that Justice Thomas had a duty to ‘‘inform himself’’ of 

12 his spouse’s interests. 

13 In consequence of Mrs. Thomas’s collaboration with 

14 then-President Trump to overturn the results of the 2020 

15 Presidential election, Justice Thomas had a legal obliga16 tion under section 455 of title 28, United States Code, 

17 to disqualify himself from proceedings concerning that 

18 election and the endeavor to overturn it by litigation, 

19 force, or fraud. Yet on multiple occasions, Justice Thomas 

20 participated in proceedings concerning the election any21 way. By flagrantly violating Federal ethics law, Justice 

22 Thomas betrayed his Judicial Oath to ‘‘faithfully and im23 partially discharge and perform’’ his duties ‘‘under the 

24 Constitution and laws of the United States’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
15 

•HRES 1353 IH 

1 In all of this, Justice Thomas has acted in a manner 

2 contrary to his trust as an Associate Justice of the Su3 preme Court of the United States, to the great prejudice 

4 of the cause of law and justice, to the manifest injury of 

5 the people of the United States. 

6 Wherefore, Justice Thomas, by such conduct, war7 rants impeachment and trial and removal from office, and 

8 disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, 

9 trust, or profit under the United States. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS