COURT WATCH: Ginni Thomas’s Conservative Activism Presents New Conflict of Interest for Justice Thomas in Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections

Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections, a case brought forward by conservative Congressman Mike Bost, which will have major consequences for mail-in voting and could even lead to the manipulation of future elections.

But what has not yet come to light is that Justice Thomas holds major conflicts of interest in the case, through his wife Ginni Thomas who is closely tied to Judicial Watch, a right-wing election lawfare group, bringing forward the case. It’s the latest example of how Thomas’s political activism and ties to a constellation of conservative groups poses a major threat to the Court’s legitimacy and impartiality at a time when polling shows that a record high of 43% of Americans say the court is too conservative.

Ginni Thomas’ ties to Judicial Watch go back to at least 2013, when Judicial Watch began hosting meetings for a coalition of right-wing activists known as Groundswell, now the Third Century Group. Emails obtained by American Oversight in 2022 show that Thomas has played a prominent role in the coalition, where she, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, and others met weekly in Judicial Watch’s offices in Washington, DC.

Thomas and Fitton also worked closely as members of the board of CNP Action, the political advocacy arm of the Council for National Policy, another right-wing group that functions as a networking hub for prominent conservatives.

In Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections, the Supreme Court will rule on a question of standing pertaining to an Illinois law that allows mail-in ballots to be counted after election day. If Justice Thomas participates in the case, it will add to a growing and already long list of cases in which he has neglected recusal despite conflicts presented by his wife’s activism, including but not limited to Bush v. Gore, Citizens United v. FEC, NFIB v. Sibelius, and Trump v. Anderson.

The Supreme Court’s code of conduct, which is nonbinding, calls on justices to recuse in instances “in which the justice’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned” and states that justices should avoid “the appearance of impropriety at all times.” This case is a clear violation of the standard set by the Supreme Court – the only reasonable path forward is for Justice Thomas to recuse himself from the case, or risk undermining the legitimacy of the Court even further.