Clarence Thomas, a justice, claimed on Friday that he did not reveal high-end travel sponsored by a Republican donor because he had been told at the time that he was exempt from reporting it.
In a very rare statement, Thomas claimed that the outings he and his wife, conservative activist Ginni Thomas, took with donor Harlan Crow and his wife — whom Thomas describes as among his family’s “dearest friends” — were the “sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends” that, he was told, did not need to be disclosed.
A shocking ProPublica story released on Thursday detailed Thomas’ travels with the Crows, which included excursions on the donor’s boat and private jet. A tighter ethical rule for the justices has been demanded by congressional Democrats, and several federal judges have also voiced their concerns.
The justice observes that recent changes have been made to the procedures for reporting personal hospitality.
Of course, I intend to adhere to this advice going forward, Thomas added.
According to the ProPublica article, Thomas accepted extravagant excursions from Crow to Georgia, California, Texas, New Zealand, Indonesia, and the former British colony of New Zealand. These excursions apparently included stops at homes owned by Crow or his business, as well as travel aboard Crow’s super yacht.
On Friday, Thomas’ detractors promptly countered his arguments, with Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse focusing on Thomas’ claim that the Crows had no cases pending before the Supreme Court.
Whitehouse, the chair of a Senate Judiciary panel that manages the federal bench, tweeted, “Oh, please.” If you’re having a smoke with Leonard Leo and other right-wing fixers, you should be aware that their business is the Court, not just that it is before the Court.
According to the ProPublica report, a portrait of Thomas, Crow, and other prominent Republicans, including Leo, the former head of the Federalist Society who was instrumental in transforming the federal bench under former President Donald Trump, is displayed at a New York property owned by Crow’s company. In the artwork, they are seated side by side and smoking cigars. A leader of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, and officials from significant firms were reportedly present on several of the excursions Thomas took with the Crows, according to the report. According to ProPublica, Crow himself is a member of the AEI board, and periodically, the think tank’s academics have submitted amicus papers in Supreme Court cases.
Federal judges express their concerns and speak out
The scandal has shed a strong light on the court, which is being used more frequently to settle bitter conflicts between the political branches of government.
Critics claim that the court is becoming increasingly political as confirmation hearings have devolved into political spectacles and contentious issues involving abortion, gun rights, and religious liberty have split along the well-known conservative-liberal ideological lines.
In a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts on Friday, twenty Democratic legislators from both chambers demanded that Thomas’ travels be the subject of a “quick, complete, independent and public investigation” to see whether any laws or ethics rules were broken.
A different group that is seldom heard from also expressed their opinion in response to it: federal judges who sit on subordinate courts. Both active and retired federal judges agreed to speak with CNN under the condition that their identities be withheld since they typically refrain from discussing internal issues outside of the courtroom.
One retired judge, a Republican appointment, told CNN that they were “livid” to learn about the travels.
The judge stated, “This is specifically why public esteem for the Supreme Court has collapsed.” “This goes well beyond simple ethical transgressions. The Supreme Court’s perceived legitimacy is at issue.
The federal court system has 94 district level trial courts, 13 courts of appeal, and the nine justices that sit on the highest court in the land.
A other judge, who was also appointed by a Republican, disagreed with Thomas and stated that the regulations had not been clear and that a committee on the Administrative Office of the US Courts had been working to make them clear for months before finally releasing adjustments.
The judge stated, “I always thought this area was kind of ambiguous,” adding that the guidelines had never made it clear what constituted “personal hospitality” until a clarification took effect on March 14.
The judge stated that “hospitality was never defined” and that it was “odd to think of a situation where you are spending social time with a close friend where at least occasionally some transportation doesn’t get involved.” “Someone will be driving someone where we are going if I go spend a weekend with my mates,”
Another person who agreed with Thomas claimed that they had been informed twice that they had disclosed more information than was necessary. The judge explained that the Administrative Office of the United States Courts is worried about consistency and wants the reports to look the same.
The judge said, “They don’t want a situation where one judge reports facts that other judges aren’t reporting.
The judge declared, “The new regulations create a limit.” We are ultimately constrained by the laws we have in place.
For Supreme Court justices, there is no code of behaviour
Another government source with strong ties to the court observed that the controversy surrounding Thomas concerns rules that are applicable to all federal judges, but he also claims that it has rekindled a debate over the lack of a code of behaviour that specifically addresses Supreme Court justices.
Now, a code of conduct is required of all lower court judges, but the justices have so far refrained from signing either the existing code or establishing a new one. The source claimed that the lower court judges they had spoken to felt that the refusal of the nine justices to approve a code of conduct had tarnished the judiciary as a whole.
According to the source, several judges on lesser courts believe that it “makes us all look awful.”
Chief Justice John Roberts responded to those who contend that the Supreme Court should be subject to the Judiciary Conference’s Code of Conduct for United States Judges in a report from 2011.
“The Constitution creates only one court, the Supreme Court of the United States,” he claimed. It gives Congress the authority to create more subordinate courts. According to Roberts, the two organisations are distinct, hence the nation’s highest court could not be subject to a rule of behaviour established by the Judicial Conference that Congress established.
Roberts did acknowledge that the justices on the high court “consulted” the code of conduct as well as other documents and legal counsel. Yet he added that there is “no justification to adopt” a code of conduct by the court.
Roberts stated at the time, “I have total trust in the capacity of my colleagues to assess whether recusal is appropriate.
Crow claimed in a statement to ProPublica and CNN that he has known Thomas and his wife Ginni for over 30 years and that the hospitality he has shown them over the years was “no different than the welcome we have offered to our many other beloved friends.”
In the statement, Crow claimed that Justice Thomas and Ginni had never requested any of this hospitality. He said that neither we nor Justice Thomas had “even inquired about an ongoing or lower court matter.”
