Mention the name of Justice Clarence Thomas and chances are that you will think of the tremendous “perks” that he seems to have been enjoying from his billionaire “friends”.
As ProPublica reports in its most recent and comprehensive investigation to date, “During his three decades on the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas has enjoyed steady access to a lifestyle most Americans can only imagine.” Indeed, he has been living a billionaire’s lifestyle on his “friends’” dimes. In one case a friend even sent an entire 737 plane just to fetch him from an event. Sometimes these “friends” have cases before the Supreme Court and the ruling goes in their favor. “Corrupt” may be another adjective that applies to Thomas.
Thomas has not disclosed many of these “gifts” as required by federal law.
A comprehensive list is warranted here and makes for some interesting reading. These gifts include:
- At least 38 luxury vacations, 26 private jet flights, VIP sports passes, helicopter flights, private resorts stay and a standing invitation for a private golf club from former Berkshire Hathaway executive David Sokol, late billionaire H. Wayne Huizenga and Apex Oil CEO Paul “Tony” Novelly.
- A Super Bowl ring and other benefits from members of the Horatio Alger Association, a group of influential people who celebrate the American dream.
- Two years of tuition for his grandnephew Mark Martin, whom he has custody of, to attend two private schools in the 2000s from GOP megadonor and developer Harlan Crow.
- A string of properties in Savannah, Georgia, including the home where his mother still lives, which he sold to Crow in 2014 without disclosing it. Crow said he bought the properties to eventually build a museum dedicated to Thomas.
It is no wonder that Justice Thomas and “ethics scandals” have come to be synonymous. Yet of course, given the nature of the job description, he is in an unassailable position, and at least thus far, he has acted with impunity. Unlike other federal judges, the justices who serve on the court are not subject to any formal ethical standards or oversight mechanisms. This raises concerns about the potential for conflicts of interest, bias, or misconduct among the justices. And Thomas seems to take full advantage of the power that he enjoys.
In response to previous ProPublica reporting on gifts of luxury travel, Thomas said that the Crows “are among our dearest friends” and that he understood he didn’t have to disclose the trips. It is unnerving to think that a SCOTUS does not know the law.
However, Justin Elliott, writer and investigator for ProPublica, in a comprehensive interview on CNN on Wednesday, pointed out that Thomas became acquainted with these so-called long-term friends only after he became a SCOTUS. “It’s not as if these were college roommates” Elliott stated.
In May, ProPublica sent Crow a detailed list of questions regarding the payment of the tuition for Mark Martin. His office responded with a statement that did not dispute the facts but put a philanthropic spin on them.
“Harlan Crow has long been passionate about the importance of quality education…It’s disappointing that those with partisan political interests would try to turn helping at-risk youth with tuition assistance into something nefarious or political.”
But Richard Painter, former chief White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush, referring to the avalanche of gifts over the years, stated, “This is way outside the norm. This is way in excess of anything I’ve seen.”
Painter said that when he was at the White House, an official who’d taken what Thomas had would have been fired: “This amount of undisclosed gifts? You’d want to get them out of the government.”
The problem is that it is virtually impossible to unseat a SCOTUS—even an obviously corrupt one.
The scandals do not concern only Thomas’ private life; they have raised questions about his impartiality and integrity as a Supreme Court justice, and by extension, about the probity of the Supreme Court itself.
They have fueled calls for him to recuse himself from cases or be removed from office. They have also highlighted the need for the court to adopt a binding code of ethics, which currently does not exist for Supreme Court justices.
Sadly, Thomas is not the only Supreme Court Justice who has been creating scandals in recent times, though no one else even comes close to the magnitude of his graft.
Samuel Alito accepted private jet flights totaling over $100,000 from hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer, who has had over 10 cases before the high court, according to a ProPublica report published in June 2023. Just one of the cases where Alito voted in the majority led Singer to a $2.4 billion payout. Alito did not disclose Singer’s gifts or recuse himself from cases involving the wealthy investor.
This mixing of business and pleasure—professional with personal– that Thomas and Alito seem to find acceptable has undermined the trust in the Supreme Court at a time when American legal and judicial institutions are under siege—thanks largely to the toxic rhetoric promoted by Trumpian Republicans who constantly rant against the FBI and the DOJ in particular, and would like nothing better than to destroy them.
If the Supreme Court Justices cannot be held accountable for their honesty, how much trust can we put in the judicial system that is overseen by them?
Judges of the lower courts are subject to a code of conduct that provides clear and consistent guidelines for ethical behavior and recusal decisions. Why not make it applicable to SCOTUS?
Another alternative that has been floated as a solution to the present shameful situation is to create an independent inspector general for the Supreme Court, who would investigate and report on any allegations of misconduct or violations of the code of conduct by the justices.
The most popular reform that has long been called for is to implement term limits or mandatory retirement age for the justices, to reduce the influence of partisan politics on their appointments and decisions.
Even more to the point, perhaps if justices knew that they must follow ethical standards or be booted out of their cushy jobs they might not feel cocky enough to flout federal law.
