Thomas Recusal Mystery Solved

For the last two years, Justice Clarence Thomas has consistently recused himself in cases in which Wachovia Bank is a party -- most notably the landmark decision last week in Watters v. Wachovia Bank, a win for federal regulation of national bank subsidiaries. On Monday, Thomas stepped aside in the denial of review of yet another Wachovia case -- as well as in Turnbaugh v. National City Bank of Indiana, which did not involve Wachovia directly but raised the same issue at the Watters case.

Thomas's financial disclosure form reveals no ownership of Wachovia stock, so what gives? Thomas does not reveal his reasons for recusal in public, but we have just confirmed that Thomas's son Jamal works at Wachovia Securities, a part of Wachovia Corporation, at its headquarters in Richmond, Virginia. We haven't been able to learn his title or what area he works in, but that is almost certainly the explanation for his father's recusal.

Justices' offspring who are lawyers have long posed recusal issues; the justices even signed a statement in 1993 about how they would handle cases in which their children were involved as attorneys. But Jamal Thomas's employment at Wachovia is another sign that the issue has spread to the financial workplace as well. Justice Anthony Kennedy last month abruptly recused himself in a case Credit Suisse v. Billing. His son Gregory is a managing director at Credit Suisse.

For more details and ongoing coverage of justices' recusal practices, check our updated Recusal Report

UPDATE: We have just been informed that in fact The New York Times reported Justice Thomas's family connection to Wachovia in its story on Watters v. Wachovia Bank last week. So.. the mystery was already solved.

Comments

[Wm. Blackstone]

There was no need for disqualification. If there was Justice Bryer, with his many holdings, or Scalia, with his many children, might never adjudicate.

[gorjus]

While I'm glad he's doing it, I don't think it's a good general rule. Unless his son directly influenced or made policy or decisions involved in the suits before the Court, I would see no reason for him to recuse (for there is no appearance of impropriety). For instance, let us say instead that Jamal Thomas is at DOJ in the criminal division and handles appeals. When he isn't personally involved in a case I don't think that the Justice should recuse . . . of course, it's much easier when there are relatively isolated cases (perhaps I am wrong, but I would imagine there aren't too many appeals from Wachovia or Credit Suisse, and perhaps it's a good rule in context of the Court's lower caseload then say, a district court's).

[ohwilleke]

This is the most positive news I've heard about Justice Thomas in ages. Whatever other disagreements I have with him, he certainly isn't personally financially corrupt. He deserves high praise for avoiding even the appearance of impropriety in this case.