A special counsel investigation into Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is being sought by senators.

• Two Senate committee leaders from the Democratic party are calling for a special counsel investigation into whether Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has violated federal tax and ethics laws.
• The Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, who leads a subcommittee on federal courts, requested that Attorney General Merrick Garland make the appointment.
• The senators claimed that evidence suggests that Thomas has been secretly accepting gifts and income worth millions of dollars since he joined the high court.

On Tuesday, two Democratic Senate committee leaders requested that the Justice Department appoint a special counsel to probe whether Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas violated federal tax and ethics laws.

Last week, Senators Ron Wyden and Sheldon Whitehouse, both Democrats, wrote to Attorney General Merrick Garland, stating that their request was not made lightly.

The senators claimed in a letter that Justice Thomas has violated federal ethics and false-statement laws through his actions.

Wyden and Whitehouse raised significant questions about whether he and his wealthy benefactors complied with their federal tax obligations.

According to the evidence, it is likely that Thomas broke federal law by accepting expensive gifts from wealthy supporters and not disclosing them, in violation of the Ethics in Government Act.

Since joining the high court in 1991, Thomas has allegedly secretly accepted gifts and income potentially worth millions of dollars, as claimed by public reporting from Propublica and other sources, as well as their own Senate investigation.

The Supreme Court did not respond to CNBC's request for comment on the letter dated July 3.

In a pivotal court ruling, Thomas questioned the DOJ's authority to appoint a special counsel two days prior to the ruling.

Thomas expressed his skepticism in a statement that agreed with the majority ruling that former presidents have absolute immunity for certain actions they took while in office and at least presumptive immunity for all other official acts.

Former President Donald Trump claimed victory in the 6-3 ruling, which stated that he was not immune from prosecution in the federal election interference case being investigated by special counsel Jack Smith.

A former President cannot be criminally prosecuted by a private citizen, as there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies.

The court's ruling, which was strongly opposed by the three liberal justices, and Thomas' concurrence threatened to delay or weaken both of Smith's active criminal cases against Trump.

This is developing news. Please check back for updates.