Following moral lapses that erupted into a corruption crisis and historic disapproval ratings, the United States Supreme Court finally has a Code of Ethics.

But will it ultimately make a difference for the justices who police themselves?

Rightwing Justice Clarence Thomas is a key reason why this code was necessary, and he will now be put to the test as he presumably ponders whether he should participate in the historic Colorado case of Anderson v. Griswold, which the United States Supreme Court has set for oral arguments on February 8th.

Anderson v. Griswold is a case of first impression. The decision has profound political and constitutional implications for our country and the fabric of our democracy for generations to come.

In Anderson, the Colorado Supreme Court held that former President Donald Trump is disqualified from holding the office of president under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution because he engaged in an insurrection on Jan. 6, and, as a result, his name won’t appear on the Colorado ballot.

On Jan. 6 a coordinated mob, armed with deadly weapons, violently entered the nation’s Capitol with the intent to prevent the peaceful transfer of power from Trump to President-elect Joe Biden.

The Colorado Supreme Court based its disqualification decision on the substantial evidence in the record, which supported the factual findings that Trump not only incited but also engaged in the Jan. 6 insurrection and took other direct actions to prevent the peaceful transfer of power.

Justice Thomas finds himself on the horns of an ethical dilemma because his wife, Ginni Thomas, a conservative activist, played a major role in the unprecedented, corrupt, and illegal effort to overturn the election results and prevent Biden from taking office, which is now at the crux of the Anderson v. Griswold case.

And, under its Code of Ethics, Justice Thomas should recuse himself.

Cannon 3B of the Code of Ethics broadly states that a justice should disqualify himself where, as here, “the Justice’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned”.  This occurs when an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant circumstances would doubt that the Justice could fairly discharge his or her duties.” The Code provides a litany of non-exhaustive examples, including those in which the justice or the justice’s spouse, “has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy…or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding.”  The short version here is that the Code does not even require an actual conflict of interest.

It is incomprehensible to think that Justice Thomas will be impartial in deciding whether Trump’s role in the insurrection — which his wife helped organize, along with other efforts — should prevent Trump from holding office.

For her part, Ginni Thomas attended the Stop the Steal rally on January 6th where the Trump provoked the gatherers to “fight like hell” to stop the certification process.  She also ostensibly played a material role in planning the rally and bringing the insurrectionists to the Capitol.  As the a recent Congressional Democratic letter to Justice Thomas articulated, “your wife was one of nine board members for a conservative political group that helped lead the “Stop the Steal” movement, a movement which culminated in the January 6 attack that the Colorado Supreme Court deemed an insurrection.”

Thomas had deep access to Trump’s inner cirlce, and strongly advocated for, false claim efforts to overturn the election. She sent dozens of text messages to White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows following the election, pushing the White House to overturn the election at the same time Trump’s allies were also urging him to go to the Supreme Court to invalidate the election results.

By way of example only, on November 10th, Thomas texted Meadows: “Help This Great President stand firm, Mark!!!…You are the leader, with him, who is standing for America’s constitutional governance at the precipice.  The majority knows Biden and the Left is attempting the greatest Heist of our History.”  Thomas had also referenced her outreach to “Jared,” presumably Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser. And, Thomas was in communication with John Eastman, a legal advisor to Trump.

Legitimate questions have also been raised as to whether her earning capacity will be positively impacted should the Court grant the relief sought by Trump, based on her for-profit firm, Liberty Consulting, raising questions about her financial interests being aligned with another Trump presidency.

Under these facts and circumstances, Justice Thomas’ impartiality can be reasonably questioned.

Nevertheless, Justice Thomas has not shown any signs that he intends to recuse himself, which shouldn’t surprise anyone given his virtually unobstructed track record of delegitimizing the court.  And, when it comes to his financial well-being, whether its financial support from his billionaire friend, Harlan Crow or taking care of Ginni or Trump’s interests, Justice Thomas has always taken care of himself and his friends, no matter what the ethical rules dictate.