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 resolu-
tion; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 
RESOLUTION 
Impeaching Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice of the Su-
preme Court of the United States, for high crimes and 
misdemeanors. 
Resolved, That Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice of 
the Supreme Court of the United States, is impeached for 
high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following arti-
cles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States 
Senate: 
Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of 
Representatives of the United States of America in the 
name of itself and of the people of the United States of 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
00:55 Jul 11, 2024
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1353.IH
HR1353
ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
•HRES 1353 IH 
America, against Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice of 
the Supreme Court of the United States, in maintenance 
and support of its impeachment against him for high 
crimes and misdemeanors. 
ARTICLE I: FAILURE TO DISCLOSE 
The Constitution provides that the House of Rep-
resentatives ‘‘shall have the sole Power of Impeachment’’ 
and that all civil officers of the United States ‘‘shall be 
removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction 
of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Mis-
demeanors’’. Sections 13103 and 13104 of title 5, United 
States Code, require judicial officers, including Associate 
Justices of the Supreme Court, to file annual reports dis-
closing financial income, gifts and reimbursements, prop-
erty interests, liabilities, transactions, among other infor-
mation. Specifically, section 13104(a)(2)(A) of such title 
requires disclosure of the ‘‘identity of the source, a brief 
description, and the value of all gifts’’ exceeding minimal 
value, and section 13104(a)(5)(A) of such title requires 
disclosure of ‘‘a brief description, the date, and category 
of value of any purchase, sale or exchange’’ of real prop-
erty exceeding $1,000. 
Clarence Thomas, in his conduct as an Associate Jus-
tice of the Supreme Court of the United States, engaged 
in high crimes and misdemeanors, by refusing to report 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
00:55 Jul 11, 2024
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1353.IH
HR1353
ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
•HRES 1353 IH 
the source, description, and value of gifts, and by failing 
to report the description, date, and category of his sale 
of real estate property, as follows: 
Over the course of at least 15 years, Justice Thomas 
and his wife, Virginia ‘‘Ginni’’ Thomas, have received gifts 
of significant value from Harlan Crow without reporting 
the source, description, and value of such gifts. 
Throughout such time, Mr. Crow has served on the 
Board of Directors of the American Enterprise Institute, 
which regularly files amicus briefs in Supreme Court cases 
and whose position Justice Thomas has regularly adopted. 
The unreported gifts include, but are not limited to: 
non-commercial transportation on a private airplane and 
on a yacht to and from Indonesia in 2019, valued at ap-
proximately $500,000; non-commercial transportation on 
a yacht to and around New Zealand in or around 2013; 
non-commercial transportation on a yacht to and around 
Greece in 2007; extensive free lodging and food at 
Topridge, a resort in the Adirondacks owned by a com-
pany owned or controlled by Mr. Crow; multiple trips via 
non-commercial transportation on a private airplane on 
multiple occasions, including but not limited to flights to 
New Haven, Connecticut, in 2016, to Dallas, Texas, in 
2018 and again in 2022, to New York City in 2021, and 
to Topridge Resort in New York in 2022; and tuition pay-
VerDate 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
•HRES 1353 IH 
ments, in excess of $6,000 per month, to two private 
boarding schools for Justice Thomas’s grandnephew while 
his grandnephew lived with Justice Thomas and was in 
Justice Thomas’s legal custody. 
Justice Thomas failed to disclose the 2014 sale of a 
single-story home and two vacant lots previously held by 
Justice Thomas and two family members, to Mr. Crow for 
$133,363, an amount significantly higher than the price 
of other properties in the neighborhood and significantly 
higher than $15,000, the amount that Justice Thomas 
valued his one-third stake in the properties in 2010. Mr. 
Crow has also permitted Justice Thomas’s mother to con-
tinue living in the home rent-free through at least May 
2023, and has paid for improvements for the benefit of 
Justice Thomas’s mother, including construction of a car 
port. In 2023, Justice Thomas retroactively amended his 
2014 report to report the real estate sales transactions 
involving Mr. Crow, but to date Justice Thomas has yet 
to disclose both the free rent and the improvements that 
constitute additional gifts that Justice Thomas was re-
quired, but failed, to disclose. 
By accepting but failing to disclose multiple gifts of 
luxury vacations and travel, Justice Thomas has under-
mined the impartiality and integrity of the Supreme Court 
in violation of the public trust. His conduct has caused 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
00:55 Jul 11, 2024
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1353.IH
HR1353
ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
•HRES 1353 IH 
a reasonable person to believe the gifts were offered and 
accepted in return for being influenced in the performance 
of an official act and from the same or different sources 
on a basis so frequent that a reasonable person would be-
lieve that he used his public office for his own private gain 
or for the private gain of his donors. 
In all of this, Justice Thomas has acted in a manner 
contrary to his trust as an Associate Justice of the Su-
preme Court of the United States, to the great prejudice 
of the cause of law and justice, to the manifest injury of 
the people of the United States. 
Wherefore, Justice Thomas, by such conduct, war-
rants impeachment and trial and removal from office, and 
disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, 
trust, or profit under the United States. 
ARTICLE II: REFUSAL TO RECUSE FROM MATTERS 
INVOLVING HIS SPOUSE’S FINANCIAL INTEREST 
The Constitution provides that the House of Rep-
resentatives ‘‘shall have the sole Power of Impeachment’’ 
and that all civil officers of the United States ‘‘shall be 
removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction 
of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Mis-
demeanors’’. Section 455 of title 28, United States Code, 
provides that ‘‘[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate judge 
of the United States shall disqualify himself in any pro-
VerDate 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
•HRES 1353 IH 
ceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be 
questioned’’. 
Clarence Thomas, in his conduct as an Associate Jus-
tice of the Supreme Court of the United States, engaged 
in high crimes and misdemeanors, by refusing to dis-
qualify himself from proceedings in which his impartiality 
might reasonably be questioned, as follows: 
Justice Thomas participated in the consideration and 
decision of numerous proceedings concerning entities in 
which his spouse, Virginia ‘‘Ginni’’ Thomas, had a finan-
cial interest. 
In 2011, Harlan Crow contributed $500,000 to Lib-
erty Central, an organization founded by Mrs. Thomas 
and which, in 2010, paid Mrs. Thomas a salary of 
$120,000. Before, during, and after this contribution, Mr. 
Crow has served on the Board of Directors of the Amer-
ican Enterprise Institute, which regularly files amicus 
briefs in Supreme Court cases and whose position Justice 
Thomas has regularly adopted. 
Between June 2011 and June 2012, Mrs. Thomas’s 
firm, Liberty Consulting, received at least $80,000 in con-
sulting fees as part of an arrangement devised by Leonard 
Leo. Mr. Leo advises a nonprofit called the Judicial Edu-
cation Project, now known as The 85 Fund, which regu-
larly files briefs before the Supreme Court, including in 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
00:55 Jul 11, 2024
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1353.IH
HR1353
ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
•HRES 1353 IH 
2012. The details of the payment plan were specifically 
crafted to avoid listing Mrs. Thomas’s name on any paper-
work that might become public. Mr. Leo instructed a for- 
profit firm, The Polling Company, to act as an inter-
mediary by billing the Judicial Education Project, and 
then transmitting those funds to Liberty Consulting. 
In consequence of Mrs. Thomas’s financial interest 
and compensation from entities that regularly file briefs 
before the Supreme Court, or from donors that fund such 
entities, Justice Thomas had a legal obligation under sec-
tion 455 of title 28, United States Code, to disqualify him-
self from proceedings in which those entities participated. 
Yet on multiple occasions, Justice Thomas participated in 
such proceedings anyway. By flagrantly violating Federal 
ethics law, Justice Thomas betrayed his Judicial Oath to 
‘‘faithfully and impartially discharge and perform’’ his du-
ties ‘‘under the Constitution and laws of the United 
States’’. 
In all of this, Justice Thomas has acted in a manner 
contrary to his trust as an Associate Justice of the Su-
preme Court of the United States, to the great prejudice 
of the cause of law and justice, to the manifest injury of 
the people of the United States. 
Wherefore, Justice Thomas, by such conduct, war-
rants impeachment and trial and removal from office, and 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
00:55 Jul 11, 2024
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1353.IH
HR1353
ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
•HRES 1353 IH 
disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, 
trust, or profit under the United States. 
ARTICLE III: REFUSAL TO RECUSE FROM MATTERS 
CONCERNING HIS SPOUSE’S LEGAL INTEREST 
The Constitution provides that the House of Rep-
resentatives ‘‘shall have the sole Power of Impeachment’’ 
and that all civil officers of the United States ‘‘shall be 
removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction 
of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Mis-
demeanors’’. Section 455 of title 28, United States Code, 
provides that ‘‘[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate judge 
of the United States shall disqualify himself in any pro-
ceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be 
questioned’’. 
Clarence Thomas, in his conduct as an Associate Jus-
tice of the Supreme Court of the United States, engaged 
in high crimes and misdemeanors, by refusing to dis-
qualify himself from proceedings in which his impartiality 
might reasonably be questioned, as follows: 
Justice Thomas participated in the consideration and 
decision of numerous proceedings concerning challenges to 
the outcome of the 2020 Presidential election in which his 
spouse, Virginia ‘‘Ginni’’ Thomas, had an interest. 
For instance, Justice Thomas participated in the con-
sideration and decision of two cases in which Texas and 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
00:55 Jul 11, 2024
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1353.IH
HR1353
ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
•HRES 1353 IH 
the Republican Party of Pennsylvania, respectively, sought 
to induce the Federal judiciary to throw out the lawful 
ballots of thousands of Pennsylvania voters. Not only did 
Justice Thomas vote to advance these factually baseless 
and legally frivolous claims, but he also abused his seat 
on our Nation’s highest court to promote the falsehood 
of massive voter fraud and to question the legitimacy of 
the 2020 Presidential election results. Texas v. Pennsyl-
vania, 592 U.S. llll (2021) (Dec. 11, 2020) (No. 
155, Orig.) (Alito, J., dissenting from denial of leave to 
file bill of complaint, joined by Thomas, J.); Republican 
Party of Pennsylvania v. Degraffenreid, 592 U.S. 
llll (2021) (Thomas, J., dissenting from denial of 
certiorari). Justice Thomas also participated in the consid-
eration and decision of proceedings concerning the insur-
rection at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021— 
proceedings in which Mrs. Thomas had an interest. 
On December 23, 2021, Donald Trump submitted an 
emergency application for a stay and an injunction to 
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, seeking to prevent the Na-
tional Archives from releasing records concerning Mr. 
Trump’s attempt to overturn his defeat in the 2020 Presi-
dential election to the House Select Committee to Inves-
tigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Cap-
itol. Chief Justice Roberts referred Mr. Trump’s applica-
VerDate 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
•HRES 1353 IH 
tion to the full Supreme Court. These records included 
communications by White House Chief of Staff Mark 
Meadows. Because Mr. Meadows had been texting with 
Mrs. Thomas on or around January 6, 2021, it is possible 
that these records included texts between the two of them. 
On January 19, 2022, the Court denied Mr. Trump’s 
application—refusing to block the release of the records. 
Trump v. Thompson, 595 U. S. llll (2022) (Jan. 
19, 2022) (No. 21–272). Not only did Justice Thomas 
take part in the consideration and decision of that pro-
ceeding, but Justice Thomas was the only justice who indi-
cated that he would have voted to grant Mr. Trump’s ap-
plication. 
As part of that same litigation, Mr. Trump petitioned 
the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, asking the 
Court to reverse the decision below refusing to enjoin the 
National Archives from turning over these records to the 
Select Committee. The Court denied Mr. Trump’s peti-
tion. Trump v. Thompson, 595 U.S. llll (Feb. 22, 
2022) (No. 21–932). Again, Justice Thomas participated 
in the consideration and decision of this proceeding. 
Justice Thomas’s impartiality in the aforementioned 
proceedings might reasonably be questioned because Mrs. 
Thomas actively participated in contemporaneous political 
and legal efforts to overturn Mr. Trump’s defeat in the 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
00:55 Jul 11, 2024
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1353.IH
HR1353
ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
•HRES 1353 IH 
2020 Presidential election. Indeed, Mrs. Thomas’s interest 
in the outcome of these proceedings thoroughly com-
promised Justice Thomas’s impartiality in any case chal-
lenging the results of the 2020 Presidential election or 
concerning the events of January 6, 2021. 
In the weeks between the Presidential election on No-
vember 7, 2020, and the violent insurrection at the United 
States Capitol on January 6, 2021, Mrs. Thomas repeat-
edly urged then-President Trump to illegally overturn the 
election results and advised Mr. Trump on his litigation 
strategy, including in an exchange of at least 29 text mes-
sages about the election with White House Chief of Staff 
Mark Meadows: 
Mrs. Thomas advised the President to initiate and 
sustain political, legal, and extralegal attempts to overturn 
the results of the 2020 Presidential election (writing, ‘‘Do 
not concede’’; ‘‘The majority knows Biden and the Left 
is attempting the greatest Heist of our History’’; ‘‘save 
us from the left taking America down’’). 
Mrs. Thomas advised then-President Trump on dis-
crete litigation decisions, for instance, urging him to pro-
mote and retain Sidney Powell as his lead attorney on 
these matters (writing, ‘‘Don’t let her and your assets be 
marginalized instead . . . help her be the lead and the 
face’’; ‘‘Sounds like Sidney and her team are getting inun-
VerDate 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
•HRES 1353 IH 
dated with evidence of fraud. Make a plan. Release the 
Kraken’’). 
Mrs. Thomas advised then-President Trump’s Chief 
of Staff on how to manage the President’s legal team, for 
instance, directing him to confer with and defer to par-
ticular attorneys and advisors (writing, ‘‘listen to . . . 
Cleta’’) and to improve their morale (writing, ‘‘Suggestion: 
You need to buck up your team on the inside, Mark’’); 
Mrs. Thomas liaised between the White House, the Presi-
dent’s personal legal team, and other possible participants 
in the President’s attempt to overturn the results of the 
2020 Presidential election, like Jared Kushner and the of-
fice of Representative Louie Gohmert (writing, ‘‘Just for-
warded to y[ou]r gmail an email I sent Jared this am. 
Sidney Powell [and] improved coordination now will help 
the cavalry come and Fraud exposed and America 
saved.’’); and, Mrs. Thomas advised the President to pur-
sue his unlawful aims by any means necessary, suggesting 
that he disregard his legal and ethical obligations in the 
pursuit of the aims of the attempt to overturn the election 
(writing, ‘‘the most important thing you can realize right 
now is that there are no rules in war’’). 
Throughout this exchange, the President’s Chief of 
Staff engaged with and embraced Mrs. Thomas’s legal and 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
00:55 Jul 11, 2024
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1353.IH
HR1353
ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
•HRES 1353 IH 
political advice—confirming Mrs. Thomas’s status as a 
trusted participant in these decisions. 
When Justice Thomas participated in the consider-
ation and decision of the aforementioned cases concerning 
the 2020 Presidential election and the insurrection at the 
United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, he knew or 
should have known of his spouse’s participation in the at-
tempt to overturn the results of that election. 
Mrs. Thomas implied to others that she had told Jus-
tice Thomas herself. After the White House Chief of Staff 
urged Mrs. Thomas to maintain her commitment to this 
‘‘fight of good versus evil’’ (that is, overturning the results 
of the 2020 Presidential election), she replied that she was 
encouraged by ‘‘a conversation with my best friend just 
now’’—using a phrase (‘‘best friend’’) that she and Justice 
Thomas publicly use to refer to one another. 
Even if Mrs. Thomas did not directly inform Justice 
Thomas of her participation, much of Mrs. Thomas’s work 
to overturn the results of the election was a matter of pub-
lic record as she performed it: planning the January 6, 
2021 ‘‘Stop the Steal’’ rally as one of just nine members 
of the board of Council for National Policy Action, attend-
ing that rally, and signing a public letter alongside promi-
nent far-right leaders urging House Minority Leader 
Kevin McCarthy to expel two House Republicans in retal-
VerDate 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
•HRES 1353 IH 
iation for their service on the Select Committee inves-
tigating the insurrection. 
In the exceedingly unlikely event that Justice Thomas 
was unaware that his spouse was privately and publicly 
working to overturn the results of the 2020 Presidential 
election, he was derelict in his legal and ethical duties to 
know. Federal law required him to make a reasonable ef-
fort to discover a fact so obviously relevant to his role as 
one of the final arbiters of litigation about the election: 
section 455(c) of title 28, United States Code, is explicit 
that Justice Thomas had a duty to ‘‘inform himself’’ of 
his spouse’s interests. 
In consequence of Mrs. Thomas’s collaboration with 
then-President Trump to overturn the results of the 2020 
Presidential election, Justice Thomas had a legal obliga-
tion under section 455 of title 28, United States Code, 
to disqualify himself from proceedings concerning that 
election and the endeavor to overturn it by litigation, 
force, or fraud. Yet on multiple occasions, Justice Thomas 
participated in proceedings concerning the election any-
way. By flagrantly violating Federal ethics law, Justice 
Thomas betrayed his Judicial Oath to ‘‘faithfully and im-
partially discharge and perform’’ his duties ‘‘under the 
Constitution and laws of the United States’’. 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
00:55 Jul 11, 2024
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR1353.IH
HR1353
ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
•HRES 1353 IH 
In all of this, Justice Thomas has acted in a manner 
contrary to his trust as an Associate Justice of the Su-
preme Court of the United States, to the great prejudice 
of the cause of law and justice, to the manifest injury of 
the people of the United States. 
Wherefore, Justice Thomas, by such conduct, war-
rants impeachment and trial and removal from office, and 
disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, 
trust, or profit under the United States. 
Æ 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
00:55 Jul 11, 2024
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6301
E:\BILLS\HR1353.IH
HR1353
ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS