In late June 2019, soon after the U.S. Supreme Court released its final opinion of the term, Justice Clarence Thomas embarked on a private jet trip to Indonesia. He and his wife were set for a luxury nine-day vacation island-hopping on a superyacht, featuring a staff and a private chef. If Justice Thomas had paid for the plane and the 162-foot yacht himself, the trip could have cost over $500,000. Instead, the trip was financed by real estate magnate and Republican donor Harlan Crow, who owned both the jet and the yacht.
For more than two decades, Justice Thomas has frequently accepted luxury travel from Dallas businessman Crow, documents and interviews reveal, without disclosing these trips. Despite being a public servant with an annual salary of $285,000, Thomas has vacationed on Crow’s yacht globally, flown on Crow’s Bombardier Global 5000 jet, and visited exclusive venues like the Bohemian Grove and Crow’s private ranch in East Texas, spending summers at Crow’s Adirondack resort. Ethics experts state there is no known precedent in modern U.S. Supreme Court history for such extensive and undisclosed gifts.
Undisclosed Travel and Legal Obligations
Justice Thomas has not included these trips on his financial disclosures. Experts suggest this oversight may breach a law enacted post-Watergate that mandates justices and federal officials disclose gifts. Crow acknowledged offering hospitality to the Thomases over the years but claimed it was extended to many friends, with Thomas never requesting it.
“When a justice’s lifestyle is being subsidized by the rich and famous, it corrodes public trust. It makes my heart sink.” – Virginia Canter, former government ethics lawyer
ProPublica unearthed Thomas’ travel details from flight records and documents from Crow’s employees, corroborated by interviews. This situation has drawn criticism from several federal judges and ethics experts, suggesting Thomas has violated judicial conduct norms.
Crow’s Influence and Thomas’ Ethical Dilemmas
Federal judges serve in a role meant to be free from political pressure. Although they have lifetime tenure, designed to prevent corruption, they are governed by a code of conduct that advises avoidance of any appearance of impropriety, a guideline consulted by even Supreme Court justices.
The court is largely self-regulating, with minimal restrictions on justices accepting gifts. In stark contrast, congressional members cannot accept gifts over $50 without ethics committee approval. This discrepancy raises questions about Thomas’ ethics especially given his involvement in controversies like the non-recusal from cases related to his wife Ginni’s efforts in overturning the 2020 election.
The association between Crow and Thomas began after Thomas joined the bench. Information about Crow’s relationship with the Thomases has surfaced before. In 2011, reports stated Crow financially supported a Tea Party group founded by Ginni Thomas, which also paid her a salary of $120,000. Nonetheless, the complete scale of Crow’s generosity remained hidden until uncovered by ProPublica.
The Nature of Crow and Thomas’ Relationship
Crow has long engaged in efforts to sway judicial and political landscapes to a conservative standing. He has provided millions toward groups endorsing tort reform and conservative legal interpretations. His organization minimizes disclosing donors, a feature emblematic of so-called dark money in politics.
Crow has not directly benefited from the Supreme Court, lacking cases before them while Thomas was seated. However, Crow has financed influential groups like the Federalist Society and think tanks like the Hoover Institution, affecting conservative legal theories and strategies at various legal echelons.
Despite Thomas’ public portrayal as a modest man with unpretentious tastes, the reality of his luxury travels contrasts starkly. ProPublica’s investigation highlighted trips to affluent destinations on Crow’s private yacht and jet, creating an aura conflicting with Thomas’ expressed self-identity.
Consequences and Reactions
Thomas’ failure to report these trips is seen as a violation by ethicists. They note the law demands public disclosure for gifts exceeding $415 unless fully reimbursed, a condition exempted only in specific circumstances.
The scrutiny into Thomas’ vetoed receipts of luxury travel, perpetuated by private correspondence from Crow, exposes a need for stringent ethical accountability within the highest judicial framework. Expert critiques continue surfacing questioning the justice’s perceived impartiality and commitment to duty.