By Joshua Kaplan, Justin Elliott and Alex Mierjeski, ProPublica
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ decades-long friendship with real estate tycoon Harlan Crow and Samuel Alito’s luxury travel with billionaire Paul Singer have raised questions about influence and ethics at the nation’s highest court.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas acknowledged for the first time in a new financial disclosure filing that he should have publicly reported two free vacations he received from billionaire Harlan Crow.
The pair of 2019 trips, one to Indonesia and the other to the Bohemian Grove, an all-male retreat in northern California, were first revealed by ProPublica. Last year, Thomas argued that he did not need to disclose such gifts. “Justice Thomas’s critics allege that he failed to report gifts from wealthy friends,” his lawyer previously said in a statement issued on the justice’s behalf. “Untrue.”
In the new filing released Friday, however, Thomas amended his financial disclosure for 2019, writing that he “inadvertently omitted” the trips on his previous reports.
Last year, ProPublica documented an array of undisclosed luxury vacations and other gifts Thomas has received over the years from several billionaires, including Crow. ProPublica revealed Crow had treated Thomas to numerous private jet flights and international yacht cruises, covered private school tuition for Thomas’ relative, and paid Thomas money in an undisclosed 2014 real estate deal.
Legal ethics experts said that Thomas appeared to have violated the law by failing to disclose the trips and gifts.
The Thomas revelations helped plunge the Supreme Court into its biggest ethical crisis in the modern era. Justice Samuel Alito also failed to disclose a luxury fishing trip that was paid for by wealthy political donors, one of whom had cases before the court. In recent weeks, Alito has faced criticism for politicized flags that flew at two of his homes. The public’s approval of the court has plummeted in the last few years, polls show.
In response, the court last year adopted a code of conduct for the first time in its history. The code, however, has no enforcement mechanism.
This is not the first time that Thomas has responded to public controversy about his disclosure practices by amending an old form. The forms are required by a federal law passed after Watergate that says justices must annually report income, assets and most gifts. At least twice before, Thomas has similarly defended his failure to make required disclosures as an unintentional error or a misunderstanding of the rules.
Last summer, Thomas amended his 2014 disclosure to include the real estate deal with Crow after ProPublica reported on the transaction. At the time, he wrote that he “inadvertently failed to realize” that the deal needed to be publicly reported and said he “continues to work” with judiciary staff to determine “whether he should further amend his reports from any prior years.”
Thomas engaged an outside lawyer last year to review his past filings. The new filing does not make clear whether that review is finished. The justice and his attorney did not immediately respond to requests for comment. In a statement last year, Thomas’ attorney, Elliot Berke, said that “after reviewing Justice Thomas’s records, I am confident there has been no willful ethics transgression.”
A committee of judges of the Judicial Conference, the principal policymaking body for federal courts, also said last year it had launched a review of the allegations against Thomas. By law, if there is “reasonable cause” to believe a justice intentionally omitted information from a report, the conference is supposed to refer the matter to the attorney general. Such a referral would be unprecedented. A judiciary spokesperson told ProPublica on Friday there is no update on that review.
Even after the new amendments, there are many gifts Thomas received that he has still not disclosed.
As ProPublica previously reported, in 2019, Thomas flew to Indonesia on Crow’s private jet for an extended island cruise on Crow’s superyacht. If Thomas had chartered the plane and the yacht himself, it could have cost more than half a million dollars. Seven ethics-law experts said that Thomas appeared to have violated federal law by failing to disclose the free travel.
Thomas did not mention the flight to Indonesia or the yacht trip in his new filing. However, he disclosed a previously unknown detail about the trip: that Crow and his wife paid for Thomas’ stay at a hotel in Bali. Thomas acknowledged that he should have reported that.
ProPublica also reported that Thomas had taken at least six undisclosed trips with Crow to the Bohemian Grove. Thomas’ amendments to his reports include only one of those trips. Members typically must pay thousands of dollars to bring a guest to the retreat.
In his new filing, Thomas disclosed receiving one gift last year: photo albums that he valued at $2,000 from Terrence and Barbara Giroux. Terrence Giroux was the executive director of the Horatio Alger Association, a nonprofit that provides college scholarships to low-income students. Thomas is an honorary board member of the nonprofit.
Thomas reported no free trips last year, which would make 2023 an anomaly. Thomas received undisclosed vacations from Crow and other wealthy benefactors virtually every year for more than two decades.
In the disclosure forms released Friday, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the only other Supreme Court justice to report receiving a gift in 2023. Jackson said she received $12,500 worth of artwork for her chambers at the court, as well as a gift from Beyoncé of four concert tickets, which she valued at $3,711.84.
Alito, who has said he did not need to disclose his fishing trip, received a 90-day extension for filing his disclosure form for last year.
Wallingford says
Can you say Income Tax Evasion? Former Senator Tom Daschle got into trouble for not reporting a Car and Driver that was put at his disposal. This is far worse. This Judge absolutely has no Ethics; oh, I forgot, the Supreme Court has no ethics policy.
He should recuse himself from cases until his financial situation is fully investigated.
Based upon his flaunting of the law Anita Hill was probably correct in her sexual harassment accusation
Sherry says
Our Supreme Court has now been completely corrupted! Thomas and Alito are “Extreme Right” politically prejudice and absolutely unethical! Roberts is a whipped coward who refuses to require the highest court in our country to abide by reasonable ethical standards. Thomas has been “bought” by a right-winged billionaire and Alito flies his prejudice with flags at his home(S). . . yet neither one will recuse themselves from deciding crucial cases for which they are most certainly not even close to being neutral decision makers. Our founding fathers are rolling over in their graves!
JOE D says
I can’t seem to fathom (despite disclosure of “gifts” and free “trips”), however inappropriately LATE these disclosures are to begin with, that they are allowed AT ALL!
In any other “Public Servant” position, wouldn’t they be considered a POTENTIAL (if not downright BLATANT) conflict of interest, to accept expensive “PERKS” from possible individuals (indirectly anyway) influencing future Supreme Court Decisions! Even if the individuals themselves were NOT directly involved in a court case in front of these judges…their POLITICAL leanings could influence the decisions.
His response ( after MEDIA exposed his many EXPENSIVE gifts and trips, not previously reported…for YEARS), was that he was CLOSE FRIENDS with some VERY rich individuals, and they were VERY generous…..HUH?!
When you are on the HIGHEST Court in the USA…deciding legislation affecting MILLIONS of people…and you are appointed until YOU decide to retire…or DIE, there should be ABSOLUTELY no acceptance of lavish gifts from ANYONE ( much less politically powerful influencers)…just to PROVE they are not influencing your decisions.
As NURSING employee, I was not allowed to accept ANY GIFTS from patients or grateful families ( and over a 40+ year career, there were many offers), more than a box of candy or a gift coffee mug.
One grateful family wanted to give me $50, which I couldn’t accept. I suggested they make a donation of the money to their local house of worship’s YOUTH ministry in my name. Other nurses were FIRED for accepting gifts.
How so much more should Supreme Court Justices be held to a much higher standard..and it shouldn’t take MEDIA exposure before they admit to the LAVISH gifts.
jake says
“As NURSING employee, I was not allowed to accept ANY GIFTS from patients or grateful families ( and over a 40+ year career, there were many offers), more than a box of candy or a gift coffee mug.” This was a rule by your employer, not a law.
Any proof this friendship produced favorable results or decisions?
Sherry says
@jake. . . Our “We The People” . . .via government regulations . . . are the “employers” of the Supreme Court!!! Therefore, “WE” should be able to require that the Supreme Court Justices make their decisions from an “UNBIASED” perspective, or “require” that they recuse themselves However, the extreme right Republican House of Representatives/razor thin minority in the Senate certainly have zero problem looking the other way because this corrupt extreme right Supreme Court is forwarding their “right winged” agenda.
“After” a decision is made that “permanently” changes our laws is NOT the time to require recusal! These justices are telling us they are biased NOW! They need to be held back from cases where their biases are unacceptable! But NO ONE is stepping up to make sure that happens!
” Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely”!
jake says
As I said, “Any proof this friendship produced favorable results or decisions?”
Nancy N says
The point is that it doesn’t matter if there is “proof” or not (and many of us believe that there is plenty of proof that his rulings are biased). Ethics rules exist in the practice of law – and other professions – to prevent even the *appearance* of impropriety or bias. Because even the appearance of an impropriety or conflict can be as damaging as an actual violation. It damages faith in the institution, undermines the rule of law, and ultimately as we are seeing, is damaging to democracy itself.
Sherry says
@ Nancy N. Thanks so much or trying to educate jake. Unfortunately, it seems that he could care less about the “bribery” and unethical behavior of our Supreme court justices. jake, and others like him, seem to have thrown out their moral compass altogether.
We have lost millions of our fellow citizens, not only to the fear and hate peddled 24/7 on FOX, but to the lack of understanding that “character/principles” are the very foundations of a civilized society that aspires to equal justice under the law.
Jim says
Jake, no offense but I believe it works like this…. Thomas is a conservative judge and he made noises to his rich buddies a few years back that he wasn’t making enough money and was thinking about going into private practice. His rich buddies, who also are conservatives, want Thomas on the bench so they’ll continue to get rulings that fall in line with their conservative views. If Thomas were to quit, then it risks a less conservative or, God forbid, a liberal might replace him on the court. So if his conservative rich buddies gift him trips and such and forgive $278k debt on his mobile home and who knows what else, then they get the keep their conservative judge in line for relative “chump change” to them.
So it doesn’t necessarily translate to giving Thomas gifts and such in exchange for one specific ruling (although that may well have happened but I expect we’ll never know). Just like companies and employees, sometimes they give an employee a bonus to keep them happy. And I think Judge Thomas has been kept very happy.
By the way, on the humorous side… My career was in providing military ammunition to the military and I was a civilian contractor. We were not allowed to give or receive any gifts of any value to our customers (government) or suppliers (civilian). I never had an issue with it. I do find it quite interesting that if you get high enough in the government (representative, senator or judge) there are much more flexibility in that regard. As usual, the leash is kept on the puppies while the pit bulls are allowed to run free!!! No wonder the country is in such a mess.
Jackson says
“took multiple lavish vacations paid for by Republican billionaire”
We know Clarence Thomas isn’t dumb. He knew at the start that taking money from a billionaire is unethical. But he doesn’t seem to care what anyone thinks. He is going to do what he wants to do, forget ethics. We need to reign in these reckless and extremist judges one way or another. The only way to do that is to vote for Democrats. Considering the dumpster fire that is the Republican party, I think it is the patriotic and right thing to do.
Laurel says
I know, it’s so easy to forget your trip to Indonesia, right? Oh, what? Many luxury trips over decades? He simply misunderstood? If he’s that confused over something simple, maybe he isn’t capable of making decisions that effect all our lives.
Looks like another “high tech lynching.”
Here’s reality: Go to any city or county employees, and ask them what they can except as gifts. They will tell you that they have had mandatory meetings regarding such ethics questions and receiving gifts. About what they can accept is the whole office receiving a fruit basket, and then see who gets to take home the basket when it’s empty. That’s it!
The Supreme Court is biased.
Skibum says
The Supremes will continue to have ethics issues and suffer from significant erosion of public trust unless and until there is the same formal and adhered to rules of judicial conduct for each of them that all other federal judges must abide by. Both sides in Congress need to understand and act on this important issue sooner rather than later, because it is obvious that the Supremes have no interest in holding themselves to the same standard that they enforce on the rest of the federal judiciary. And while they are at it, I think it is high time that Congress enacts a law that ends the lifetime appointments of justices on the Supreme Court.
Sherry says
Right On Skibum. . . unfortunately, since Congress is essentially ruled by the Republicans (who are currently ruled by the “extreme right”), Congress has zero motivation to police this “extreme right” Supreme court.
Our entire democracy is circling the drain. We must rise up and do everything we can to get qualified democrats registered and out to vote Republicans out of office at every level1