Clarence Thomas must recuse himself from today’s CFPB case.

He has a direct conflict of interest

Friends,

Today, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) v. Community Financial Services Association of America (CFSA) — a case challenging the agency’s funding structure, brought by a group that represents payday lenders.

If the court sides with the payday lender plaintiffs, it would gut not only the CFPB (potentially triggering a 2008-like mortgage market meltdown) but many other regulatory agencies and programs without traditional appropriations — including the Federal Reserve, the SEC, Medicare, and Social Security.

This litigation is particularly important to companies that profit by luring consumers into financial traps — such as the National Multifamily Housing Council, a landlord lobbying group that has opposed CFPB regulation of the tenant screening industry.

And who has bankrolled the National Multifamily Housing Council? Who has lobbied consistently against the CFPB? What organization would like to gut the Fed, SEC, Medicare, and Social Security?

Follow the money: the Koch Brothers and their right-wing network.

And which justice has secretly served as a fundraising draw for the Koch network’s donor events?

Keep following the money. Clarence Thomas.

Thomas has been the secret guest of honor at the Koch network’s annual winter donor summit at least twice.

During one such event, on January 25, 2018, the group announced a new initiative for putting conservatives on the Supreme Court and the federal bench by getting senators to vote for Trump’s judicial nominees. The group even appointed a former employee of Ginni Thomas, the justice’s wife, to lead the effort.

To score an invite to the Koch summit, donors typically have to donate at least $100,000 a year. High-flying donors who give in the millions receive special treatment, including dinners with Charles Koch and celebrity guests such as Thomas.

The dinners’ purpose is “giving donors access and giving them a reason to come or to continue to come in the future,” a former Koch network executive told ProPublica. Staffers said that Thomas has been brought in to speak in hopes that such access would encourage donors to continue giving.

(Thomas has never reported his private jet flights to and from the Koch donor summits, or his accommodations, or any other remuneration, on his annual financial disclosure form, an apparent violation of federal law requiring justices to report most gifts.)

This puts Thomas in the extraordinary position of having served as a fundraising draw for a network that has a direct interest in cases before the Supreme Court — including, in particular, today’s CFPB case.

Oh, and none other than John Eastman — the ex-adviser to former President Donald Trump who was indicted in the Georgia election interference case and corresponded with Ginni Thomas before the January 6, 2021, insurrection — filed an amicus brief in CFPB v. CFSA, supporting the payday lenders. (Eastman also clerked for Thomas.)

Just yesterday, the Supreme Court turned down a bid by Eastman to erase court rulings that described him as a linchpin in Trump’s bid to subvert the 2020 election.

Thomas did not participate in yesterday’s Supreme Court decision concerning Eastman. Why not? Maybe because several of the emails that inadvertently were made public during a legal fight between Eastman and congressional investigators showed top Trump advisers describing Clarence Thomas as their likeliest ally in an effort to get the Supreme Court to legitimize Trump’s efforts.

A Trump adviser wrote in a Dec. 31, 2020, email to Trump’s legal team:

“We want to frame things so that Thomas could be the one to issue some sort of stay or other circuit justice opinion saying Georgia is in legitimate doubt.” Thomas would be “our only chance to get a favorable judicial opinion by Jan. 6, which might hold up the Georgia count in Congress.”

To which Eastman replied:

“I think I agree with this,” since a favorable move by Thomas or other justices would “kick the Georgia legislature into gear” to help overturn the election results.

***

Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t see how Thomas can be trusted to rule impartially in the CFPB case on matters that would financially benefit his billionaire benefactors, and by extension, himself.

He must recuse himself, as he evidently did on yesterday’s ruling concerning John Eastman.

If Thomas doesn’t voluntarily recuse himself from this case, the U.S. government, representing the CFPB, should file a motion with the court seeking Thomas’s recusal — which all other justices will have an opportunity to rule on.

What do you think?