Abstract
In March 2022, the public was stunned to learn that Virginia Thomas, wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, was in steady communication with Mark Meadows, Donald Trump's Chief of Staff, supporting Trump's efforts to overturn the presidential election results of the 2020 election. Moreover, political leaders and legal practitioners were troubled that Clarence Thomas had not recused himself in Trump v. Thompson, 142 S. Ct. 680, 680 (2022), a case involving Trump's application for an injunction against the National Archives turning over thousands of presidential documents to the House Select Committee, which was investigating the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. This severe ethical lapse by Thomas is the latest in a series of ethical improprieties going back 30 years. The first in the catalogue of Thomas' ethical violations was his decision in ALPO Petfoods, Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co., 913 F.2d 958 (D.C. Cir. 1990), which materially changed the law of Lanham Act remedies in the D.C. Circuit. The article delves into Thomas' bizarre and erroneous legal analysis that resulted in overturning a multimillion-dollar false advertising damage award against pet food manufacturer Ralston-Purina. It will also discuss the unusually close mentor-mentee relationship between Thomas and Senator John Danforth of Missouri, grandson of the founder of Ralston-Purina and whose family owned a large holding of stock in the company. Danforth was instrumental in guiding Thomas' entire career and had a hand in obtaining every job in Thomas' post-law school life, including his present one. This extraordinarily close relationship created a conflict of interest that should have led Thomas to recuse himself from considering the Alpo case.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
