'These revelations change everything': Should Justice Thomas recuse himself? It's a fair question.

The seat that Justice Clarence Thomas occupies on the Supreme Court bench has been especially hot in recent weeks amid calls for his recusal from certain cases. The roaring fire has been fueled by revelations that his wife, Ginni Thomas, a well-connected conservative activist, involved herself in efforts to undermine American democracy.

After magazine articles in January and February questioned how her work might impair his, Ginni Thomas gave an interview in March offering reassurances that she and her husband have separate careers and separate opinions. "Clarence doesn't discuss his work with me, and I don't involve him in my work," she said.

That has been the correct and prevailing way to think about Washington power couples; however, the Thomases have given us good reason to question whether that deferential status quo should apply in these circumstances.

In her interview, which the Washington Free Beacon billed as an effort to "set the record straight" about the events of Jan. 6, 2021, Ginni Thomas confirmed she attended a rally that day outside the White House at The Ellipse. She said she left before President Donald Trump's appearance on stage and before a mob of his supporters attacked the U.S. Capitol delaying the certification of Trump's electoral defeat. Her brief appearance before things got out of hand was the extent of what she did, she said.

Enough already: Texts from Ginni Thomas show the Big Lie has metastasized into a Big Delusion. Enough already.

Perhaps she accurately retraced the physical steps she took on Jan. 6, but she glossed over far more significant details about the extent of her involvement in the broader conspiracy. Unlike the pawns who scaled walls to invade the halls of Congress, Ginni Thomas had a direct line to senior Trump administration officials, and she used it in the weeks between the 2020 election and Jan. 6 attack to spur flagrantly antidemocratic efforts to overturn Joe Biden's victory. The Washington Post and CBS News revealed late last month that 21 text messages Ginni Thomas sent to White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows (and eight that he sent to her) were among 2,320 messages Meadows provided to the House select committee investigating the insurrection. The messages are jaw-droppingly delusional.

The revelation that his wife's messages are now part of the committee's review presents a big problem for the justice, who has already begun to weigh in on cases related to the investigation. Trump asked the Supreme Court to block the release of White House records related to the Capitol riot to the House select committee. When the court denied that request in January, Thomas was the only justice who said he would have granted Trump's request to have the records withheld. It's not entirely clear whether the records at issue in that case mention Ginni Thomas, and we don't know exactly what Clarence Thomas knew about his wife's activities a year prior, but the specter of a possible conflict of interest is unmistakable.

I am the last of the Obama Republicans: But I still have hope for lasting change.

Some have gone so far as to suggest Thomas should resign from the court or even be impeached, but that's political fan-fiction from liberals who are upset with the court's conservative majority.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was right when he said there's an "inappropriate pressure campaign" to "bully" Thomas off the court. That said, it's reasonable to think Thomas needs to recuse himself from certain Jan. 6 cases in light of his wife's direct involvement in antidemocratic efforts to keep Trump in power.

To gain a clearer sense for how we should be thinking about the calls for recusal, I reached out to three ethics experts, who tend to disagree with each other about questions of political significance. Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, Kathleen Clark is a professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis, and Norman Eisen is a senior fellow at Brookings who served as President Barack Obama's ethics czar and as counsel to the House Judiciary Committee for Trump's first impeachment and trial.

Here's how Turley, Clark and Eisen answered my questions:

1. When should Supreme Court justices recuse themselves?

Turley: There are a variety of reasons for any judge or justice to recuse themselves due to personal or professional associations with a party or an underlying claim. That includes the need to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest in a given case. The Supreme Court has long minimized such recusals since they often leave the court with an even number of voting members. That can result in a tie in cases in which the parties have spent years (and considerable money) to reach a final resolution. However, a dead-locked court is superior to a compromised court where there is a valid ethical complaint.

Clark: A statute, 28 U.S.C. 455, defines when a justice must recuse. It has two parts: (1) a general standard requiring recusal if a justice’s "impartiality might reasonably be questioned," and (2) a list of specific factual situations requiring recusal, such as if a justice's spouse is "acting as a lawyer in" a case or the justice knows the spouse has "an interest that could be substantially affected by" the case’s outcome.

Eisen: Justices are not divine beings from some Olympian realm beyond ethics. Like lower court judges and, indeed, like any government officials, they should be subject to the golden rule of ethics: You must recuse when you have a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict. That is codified in federal law and also reflected in Supreme Court precedent. Thomas certainly has the appearance of a serious conflict and very likely the reality of one in connection with the Jan. 6 cases because of his wife's entanglements relating to that terrible day.

2. What's driving calls for Thomas to recuse himself?

Turley: There is a legitimate concern over Thomas voting in the January case. However, the coverage has ignored countervailing points against recusal, including the fact that these messages were already turned over and were not impacted by his vote. Moreover, these critics were notably silent during equally concerning ethical controversies involving figures like the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It is also worth noting that many of these critics support court packing. Reducing the court by a conservative vote can have the same impact as expanding it.

Clark: Many people are concerned about small "d" democratic values and the rule of law and, in particular, whether our institutions (including the Supreme Court) will hold accountable the people who attempted to overturn the 2020 election results. Justices are supposed to be impartial, and a justice whose spouse was involved in that effort is unlikely to be impartial in a case related to that effort.

Eisen: I and many other ethics experts concur that Thomas should recuse himself because of the series of startling revelations about his wife's connection to Jan. 6 and its run-up. Her texts to the White House chief of staff show she was aggressively pushing the Big Lie that culminated in Jan 6. She told him she had discussed these matters with her "best friend," a term she and the justice reportedly use about each other. And investigative journalists have revealed her myriad other connections to the Jan. 6 "Stop the Steal" rally and its organizers.

3. Is there any rational basis for claims that Thomas should recuse himself?

Turley: Absent new evidence, I fail to see the clear basis for recusal in any election-related or commission-related case (as opposed to the January matter). Ginni Thomas is a well-known political advocate and, like many power couples in Washington, they have separate professional lives. The published messages represent protected speech on positions Ginni Thomas has previously and publicly advocated. Like the meritless calls for impeachment, the sweeping recusal demands seem more opportunistic than objective under these circumstances.

Clark: Absolutely. The texts that Ginni Thomas sent to Mark Meadows show she advised Meadows on Trump's litigation strategy to overturn the 2020 election and has "an interest that could be substantially affected by" cases involving the election. In fact, she perceived the electoral stakes as cataclysmic, referring to an "existential threat to America," asserting that American constitutional governance is "at the precipice," and encouraging the Trump team to "release the Kraken and save us from the left taking America down."

Eisen: There is a strong basis for recusal under this law and these facts. Notably, ethics experts now urging recusal previously had felt that Ginni Thomas' activism was not a basis for her husband to recuse. That shows that their opinion is not politics as usual and is in good faith. These new revelations change everything, creating a situation that forces recusal, including because the justice's "impartiality might reasonably be questioned" and because Ginni Thomas has an "interest that can be substantially affected" by the cases.

4. What steps should Thomas take in response to calls for his recusal?

Turley: There is no requirement for justices to respond to such claims. However, there is nothing preventing a justice from doing so. I believe it is a good practice in instances like this one where credible concerns are raised. Even if justices continued to claim exemption from the ethical rules, they should at a minimum explain their decisions. There are legitimate grounds for Thomas to decline to recuse himself categorically from future cases, but the public deserves some response from either the court or Thomas.

Clark: Thomas needs to recuse himself from participating in any cases related to Trump's attempt to overturn the 2020 election results.

Eisen: Unfortunately, Thomas can't go back and fix what he did wrong in Trump v. Thompson, where he provided the sole vote to block the House select committee from getting evidence – an outcome that might have helped shield his wife and (if he is the "best friend" referred to in her text) himself from possible embarrassment or worse. But he can do better going forward by broadly recusing from other Jan. 6 cases as they arise. That is what any other judge or government official in the country would be forced to do, and he should do it too. Any failure to do so will create an ethics crisis for the Supreme Court.

5. Does the Supreme Court need its own code of judicial ethics?

Turley: Yes, I have long criticized the view that justices cannot be subject to the Code of Judicial Ethics since no lower court judge can sit in judgment of their actions. These ethical violations involve conduct of justices, not the merits of their decisions. Justices can be held accountable for a host of criminal and civil actions in lower courts. We need to end this self-declared immunity of justices from ethical codes.

Clark: Absolutely. There is an ancient and wise maxim that no person should judge their own case. The Supreme Court currently allows each justice to decide whether to recuse in any particular case. Each of us has blind spots when it comes to judging our own behavior, Supreme Court justices included. We should not and cannot rely on an individual justice to police their own behavior.

Eisen: In my book "Overcoming Trumpery," my coauthors and I argue a full code of ethics is required for the Supreme Court. It is the only court in the land that does not have one! In America, no one is above the law, and that certainly includes its ultimate arbiters on our highest court. The existing statute is no substitute for a comprehensive code of ethics.

6. What's at stake here?

Turley: While people of good faith can disagree on the merits of these claims, the adherence to ethical principles is essential to the integrity of the court as an institution. As menacingly noted by President Andrew Jackson, the court has no army. It primarily relies on its moral and legal authority to compel compliance. That authority is lost if the justices are viewed as political partisans or ethical opportunists.

Clark: Can we rely on the Supreme Court and each of its justices to apply the law in an impartial manner? Or is the court simply a group of unelected officials who use judicial power to pursue their own – or their spouse's – goals? A great deal is at stake, including trust in the government and respect for the rule of law.

Eisen: There is too little concern about the larger problem: the absence of a full code of ethics, including proper transparency about recusals, for the Supreme Court. Because we don't have the same kinds of ethics rules and sunlight for the Supreme Court justices as we do for every other federal judge, the court is susceptible to these kinds of conflicts or worse – and we might not even know it. But for the exceptional attention to Jan. 6, Ginni Thomas' texts might never have emerged. We can't count on that spotlight in every case.

Steven Porter is an assistant editor for USA TODAY Opinion. Follow him on Twitter: @reporterporter

You can read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors and other writers on the Opinion front page, on Twitter @usatodayopinion and in our daily Opinion newsletter. To respond to a column, submit a comment to letters@usatoday.com.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Justice Clarence Thomas and Jan. 6 cases: Should he recuse himself?