Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ relationship with wealthy individuals received renewed scrutiny Thursday in a report saying he has taken more than three dozen vacations with influential people during his time on the bench.
“A cadre of industry titans and ultrawealthy executives have treated him to far-flung vacations aboard their yachts, ushered him into the premium suites at sporting events and sent their private jets to fetch him — including, on more than one occasion, an entire 737. It’s a stream of luxury that is both more extensive and from a wider circle than has been previously understood,” ProPublica said Thursday in an article that went viral on social media.
The news outlet noted that Justice Thomas has taken 38 destination vacations that included voyaging on a yacht, traveling via private jets and even helicopters.
It is the latest in a series of articles from ProPublica about Justice Thomas and his relationship with wealthy businessmen.
The first article was published in April about Harlan Crow, a Republican megadonor and real estate mogul who has vacationed with Justice Thomas and his wife, Ginni Thomas.
The issue, according to the outlet, is that Justice Thomas never disclosed the luxury travel.
Reports also surfaced that Mr. Crow paid the private school tuition at Hidden Lake Academy and Randolph-Macon Academy for Justice Thomas’ great-nephew, whom the justice took in to raise at the age of 6.
The tuition total could have cost more than $150,000, according to ProPublica. Justice Thomas did not disclose the payments in his financial disclosure forms, and the news outlet suggested that runs afoul of ethical standards required of a federal judge.
Mr. Crow also purchased Justice Thomas’ mother’s home even though she continued to reside there, according to the outlet.
The Washington Post followed with an April 16 article examining what appeared to be a typo on the justice’s financial disclosure related to family real estate holdings in which he reported rental income to Ginger Ltd. Partnership instead of Ginger Holdings LLC.
The New York Times followed with a piece critical of Justice Thomas and other Republican appointees collecting generous salaries to teach courses at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia School of Law.
Justice Thomas has defended his friendship with Mr. Crow, and said he consulted with colleagues about disclosure requirements and didn’t skirt any rules.
ProPublica also scrutinized a trip Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. took with billionaire Paul Singer, in a report last month.
Critics have jumped on the revelations, calling for legislation to impose an ethics code on the high court.
In response to Democrats’ concerns about ethics, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the high court has generally followed the Judicial Conferences’ Code of Conduct that is binding on lower courts — but not the Supreme Court — since 1991.
He said all justices must file disclosures that are reviewed by the Judicial Conference Committee on Financial Disclosure and follow what lower courts do with recusals. But he noted that the system is flexible, given the composition of the high court.
He also said the justices have faced increased threats. He said they sometimes do not disclose justices’ travel arrangements for security reasons.
Chief Justice Roberts refused, though, to testify before the lawmakers about their ethics concerns.
Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee recently passed legislation that would require the court to adopt a code of ethics, create a way to probe alleged misconduct and improve transparency and explanations for recusals and connections justices share with parties that may have cases before the court.
Sen. Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat and committee chairman, said the latest ProPublica report suggests the travel and nondisclosure aren’t “merely ethical lapses.”
“This is a shameless lifestyle underwritten for years by a gaggle of fawning billionaires,” Mr. Durbin said. “Justices Thomas and Alito have made it clear that they are oblivious to the embarrassment they have visited on the highest court in the land. Now, it is up to Chief Justice Roberts and the other Justices to act on ethics reform to save their own reputations and the integrity of the Court. If the Court will not act, then Congress must continue to.”
Republicans, meanwhile, have argued that the move was a politically motivated attack on the court from the left.
The legislation is unlikely to succeed because it would need support from at least nine Republicans to pass in the Senate or probably would not be taken up in the GOP-controlled House.
• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.