Justice Thomas / Monsanto Recusal - Constituent Support

Rule of Law/Judiciary

Contact Information

Date Contacted: March 2026 Method: Email via Langworthy.house.gov Topic: Support for Justice Clarence Thomas recusing himself from Monsanto Co. v. Durnell Response Status: Form letter received (Mar 3, 2026; forwarded Mar 4, 2026)

Langworthy’s Response

Tracking Code: [YRMY30-EL97P] Response Date: March 3, 2026 (6:23 PM)

“Thank you for contacting me to express your support for Justice Thomas recusing himself from participating in the Monsanto Co. v. Durnell case. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.”

On Congressional authority:

“As you may know, there is currently no law requiring Supreme Court Justices to recuse themselves from a case. Each Justice is responsible for making an individual determination based on longstanding ethical standards. It is standard practice for a Justice to disqualify themselves if their impartiality could be reasonably questioned, including situations involving a financial interest, prior involvement in the case, the participation of a close family member, or personal bias toward a party.”

Deflecting to Thomas’s own judgment:

“As a Member of Congress, I do not have direct authority to determine whether Justice Thomas can participate in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell. I have full confidence that Justice Thomas – who has recused himself from cases in the past – will follow Supreme Court precedent and assess whether he can rule impartially in this case.”

“Rest assured that should the House consider any legislation related to the Supreme Court, I will keep your thoughts in mind.”

What This Response Does NOT Address

  1. The specific conflict of interest — No acknowledgment of reported financial ties between Thomas and Monsanto-adjacent interests
  2. Supreme Court Ethics Act — Congress does have the ability to pass binding recusal standards; Langworthy does not address this
  3. Whether Langworthy supports stronger judicial ethics laws — Defers entirely; no position stated
  4. Constituent’s concern — Acknowledges it but takes no position

Note on Congressional Authority

While Langworthy correctly notes he cannot personally order a recusal, Congress has the authority to pass legislation establishing binding recusal standards for Supreme Court Justices. The response’s framing that “I do not have direct authority” is accurate but incomplete — it does not address whether he supports legislative action.

Form Letter Evidence

  • Tracking code: [YRMY30-EL97P]
  • Generic description of recusal standards without addressing the specific case
  • Standard closing: “My door is always open…”

Documents

Note: This entry documents publicly available information from official correspondence. Personal constituent information has been redacted.

Last updated: March 14, 2026