Senate Democrats likely to subpoena Clarence Thomas allies in push for ethics code on Supreme Court

Senate Democrats are moving to subpoena Harlan Crow, a GOP megadonor and close friend to Justice Clarence Thomas, along with other conservative allies as part of their push to impose an ethics code on the Supreme Court.

On Monday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Richard Durbin, Illinois Democrat, said his panel will move forward with a vote to subpoena Mr. Crow; Leonard Leo, a conservative advocate and aide to former President Trump in his judicial nominations; and Robin Arkley II, who allegedly gifted trips to Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. and the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

The committee is composed of 11 Democrats to 10 Republicans, suggesting the subpoenas will likely be authorized in a close vote. Subpoena authorization is listed on the committee’s agenda during its Nov. 2 meeting.

The Democrats on the panel want the men to testify in order for lawmakers to push legislation aimed at imposing a code of ethics on the nation’s highest court.

“Due to Crow, Leo, and Arkley’s intransigence, the Committee is now forced to seek compulsory process to obtain the information they hold. Therefore, Chair Durbin will be asking the Committee to grant him authorization to issue subpoenas to these individuals,” said Mr. Durbin, along with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island Democrat and chair of the subcommittee on federal courts.

“The Chief Justice could fix this problem today and adopt a binding code of conduct. As long as he refuses to act, the Judiciary Committee will,” they wrote.

Senate Democrats have been going back and forth with Mr. Crow for months about his financial relationship with Justice Thomas.

In May, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee asked Mr. Crow to provide detailed information about his friendship with Justice Thomas and detail certain gifts or expenses he’s made on his behalf.

Mr. Crow, through his attorneys, declined to answer the inquiries, saying in his letter that it suggested a separation of powers conflict.

Democrats on the Judiciary Committee claim Mr. Leo and Mr Arkley also refused to provide the committee with information about their relationship with the justices.

The requests have come after a series of news articles about Justice Thomas and his friendship with Mr. Crow, a billionaire real estate developer.

ProPublica reported that Mr. Crow paid 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 the ethics standards required of a federal judge.

Scrutiny of the justice has continued in recent months.

ProPublica reported in April that Justice Thomas did not disclose that he took multiple luxury vacations with Mr. Crow or that Mr. Crow purchased the home of Justice Thomas’ mother even though she continued to reside there.

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 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.

Mr. Crow, in a statement through his office, said the move by Democrats to issue a subpoena is disappointing. 

“It’s disappointing that one party on the Committee would choose to pursue an unnecessary, partisan, and politically motivated subpoena instead of simply reciprocating Mr. Crow’s good faith efforts at a reasonable compromise that respects both sides. We offered extensive information responsive to the Committee’s requests despite the serious constitutional and privacy concerns presented to the Committee, which were ignored and remain unaddressed. Notably, the Committee has already passed the legislation for which it says the information it has requested is supposedly necessary. It’s clear this is nothing more than a stunt aimed at undermining a sitting Supreme Court Justice for ideological and political purposes. Mr. Crow, a private citizen, won’t be bullied by threats from politicians. However, as previously conveyed to the Committee, we remain committed to respectful cooperation and a fair resolution,” read a statement from Harlan Crow’s office.

Mr. Leo said the Democrats are seeking to destroy the Supreme Court. In a letter earlier this month to the committee, Mr. Leo noted the requests appear to be political retaliation in violation of the Constitution. 

“I will not bow to the vile and disgusting liberal McCarthyism that seeks to destroy the Supreme Court simply because it follows the Constitution rather than their political agenda. Here is our response letter of over a week ago, which they never acknowledged,” he said.

Other articles involving Justice Alito and ethics concerns have also surfaced involving luxury travel hosted by billionaires.

Justice Alito has pushed back, denying any wrongdoing.

The high court doesn’t have a mandatory code of ethics, even though lower court judges are expected to avoid impropriety or do business with anyone who may come before the bench.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has said the high court has generally followed the Judicial Conferences’ Code of Ethics that are binding on lower courts — but not the Supreme Court — since 1991.

In July, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee advanced a bill that would require the high court to impose a code of ethics on itself.

But so far, that legislation has not revived a full vote on the Senate floor where it would likely not meet the 60-vote threshold needed to overcome a filibuster in the 51-49 chamber.