Washington, DC – Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Representative Hank Johnson (D-GA) today led their colleagues in a letter calling on the Chief Justice of the United States to launch an ethics investigation into Justice Clarence Thomas’s extensive billionaire-funded luxury travel and other outstanding allegations of misconduct. The letter comes a day after a bombshell ProPublica report exposed that Justice Thomas and his wife accepted extravagant vacations worth as much as $500,000 on the dime of Republican megadonor Harlan Crow.
Whitehouse and Johnson are Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate and House Judiciary Courts Subcommittees respectively. The letter was also signed by Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Ed Markey (D-MA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Tom Carper (D-DE), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Peter Welch (D-VT), Jack Reed (D-RI), and Mazie Hirono (D-HI), and Representatives Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Gerald Connolly (D-VA), Deborah Ross (D-NC), Mike Quigley (D-IL), Madeleine Dean (D-PA), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), Cori Bush (D-MO), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), and Steve Cohen (D-TN).
“In light of yesterday’s reporting by ProPublica that Justice Clarence Thomas has repeatedly accepted and failed to disclose gifts and travel from billionaire Harlan Crow, we write to request an investigation into these and other outstanding allegations of unethical, and potentially unlawful, conduct at the Supreme Court. To date, the Court has barely acknowledged, much less investigated, these allegations. Amidst all of this—perhaps due in part to the Court’s inaction—the American people’s trust in the Supreme Court has plummeted to an all-time low. We believe that it is your duty as Chief Justice ‘to safeguard public faith in the judiciary,’ and that fulfilling that duty requires swift, thorough, independent and transparent investigation into these allegations,” wrote the members.
Whitehouse has also raised these concerns in his appearances at the Judicial Conference. In February, Whitehouse and Johnson reintroduced the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency (SCERT) Act, comprehensive legislation that would create a much-needed process for investigating misconduct at the Supreme Court, strengthen recusal standards for judges and disclosure rules for special interests trying to influence the courts, improve disclosure of gifts and travel for judges, and mandate the creation of a binding code of ethics. The SCERT Act would require the Supreme Court to adopt disclosure rules for gifts, travel, and income that are at least as rigorous as ethics rules for members of Congress.
Late last month, in response to Whitehouse, the Judicial Conference released updated financial disclosure rules that resolved key ambiguities related to the personal hospitality exemption addressed in the SCERT Act—the very exemption Justice Thomas and others appear to have exploited. By mandating that the Supreme Court’s disclosure rules be at least as transparent as Congress’s, the SCERT Act would ensure that Supreme Court rules require full disclosure of gifts and travel, even if the Judicial Conference were to adopt a less stringent policy in the future. The SCERT Act would also strengthen recusal requirements when parties who have provided gifts to justices appear before the Court, and require parties to disclose those gifts to the Court.
“It is no longer viable for the Supreme Court to argue that it ‘consults’ the code of conduct governing lower court judges. And it is not accurate to state that the justices follow the same financial disclosure rules as other federal judges, when there are such flagrant violations. While the Judicial Conference recently updated those rules to reject definitions that Justice Thomas may have thought justified his lack of disclosure, your annual report more than a decade ago on the judiciary cast doubt on whether the Court believes it must abide by those rules —notwithstanding the federal law governing disclosure that expressly applies to Supreme Court justices. It is well past time for the Supreme Court to align with the rest of government in a proper code of ethics enforced by independent investigation and reporting,” the members added.
Whitehouse and Johnson have also engaged in a series of correspondence with the Supreme Court regarding an outside influence campaign – known as Operation Higher Court – exposed by reporting in Politico and the New York Times. A right-wing religious group, Faith and Action, targeted Republican-appointed justices with lavish gifts from wealthy donors, and allegedly gained advanced knowledge of the Court’s decision in a key case.
Last spring, Whitehouse and Johnson wrote to Chief Justice Roberts requesting that he ensure that Justice Thomas recuse himself from cases involving his wife’s activities related to the 2020 election and the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Thomas has refused to recuse himself, or acknowledge the possible conflict of interest, in multiple cases. Chief Justice Roberts has taken no known action on this matter to date.
Today’s letter is available here and below.
April 7, 2023
The Honorable John G. Roberts
Chief Justice of the United States
Supreme Court of the United States
One First St. NE
Washington, D.C. 20543
Dear Chief Justice Roberts:
In light of yesterday’s reporting by ProPublica that Justice Clarence Thomas has repeatedly accepted and failed to disclose gifts and travel from billionaire Harlan Crow, we write to request an investigation into these and other outstanding allegations of unethical, and potentially unlawful, conduct at the Supreme Court. To date, the Court has barely acknowledged, much less investigated, these allegations. Amidst all of this—perhaps due in part to the Court’s inaction—the American people’s trust in the Supreme Court has plummeted to an all-time low. We believe that it is your duty as Chief Justice “to safeguard public faith in the judiciary,” and that fulfilling that duty requires swift, thorough, independent and transparent investigation into these allegations.
According to ProPublica, “[f]or more than two decades, [Justice] Thomas has accepted luxury trips virtually every year . . . without disclosing them.” These gifts were provided by Texas real estate magnate Harlan Crow, “[a] major Republican donor for decades.” Gifts that Mr. Crow reportedly provided to Justice Thomas include international travel on private jets and yachts, and stays at private resorts, including annual retreats to a resort owned by Mr. Crow’s company. The value of some of these gifts exceeds $500,000, according to ProPublica’s reporting.
Justice Thomas has disclosed almost none of these gifts over the past twenty years. Federal financial disclosure laws require senior government officials, including Supreme Court justices, to report gifts such as these annually. The limited exceptions to these laws are intended to allow government officials to enjoy hospitality in the course of ordinary, personal friendships. These exceptions are not meant to allow government officials to hide from the public extravagant gifts by wealthy political interests. It is telling that Mark Paoletta, the Thomases’ lawyer who accompanied the Justice on at least one of these trips, was informed by executive branch ethics counsel that he needed to reimburse Mr. Crow.
A proper investigation should inquire who accompanied Justice Thomas on these undisclosed trips. Current reporting shows at least one individual active before the Court: Leonard Leo, who played an instrumental role in the appointment of several members of the Court and whose dark-money front groups funded ads for their confirmations and now appear before the Court. We have reason to believe that Mr. Crow himself is connected to multiple groups that have filed amicus briefs with the Court. Yet the public has no way of knowing who else with interests related to Justice Thomas’s official duties joined these trips.
Just last year, a right-wing activist admitted to coordinating a previously undisclosed 20-year, $30 million judicial lobbying campaign at the Supreme Court. As part of this operation, this activist reportedly “coached” wealthy donors “to wine, dine and entertain conservative Supreme Court justices” in an attempt to “embolden the justices” to write “unapologetically conservative” opinions. These donors apparently “financed numerous expensive dinners with [Justices] Thomas, Alito, Scalia and their wives at Washington, D.C. hotspots” and hosted at least one Justice at a private retreat. According to the activist who led this campaign, the donors involved in this lobbying effort were even able to secure advance notice from Justice Alito of the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in a pending case. While the Court called that concern “uncorroborated,” there was abundant corroboration that the activist knew in advance and communicated that knowledge. This episode too has never been investigated.
Over the course of the past year, Justice Thomas has participated in numerous cases implicating his wife’s activities related to the 2020 election and the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Justice Thomas’s failure to recuse in these cases raises questions about whether he violated both federal law and canons of judicial ethics regarding conflicts of interest and recusal. It has been said that he knew nothing of his spouse’s activities; that is an assertion of fact that can and should be investigated, and would be in the ordinary course for other judges and officials.
It is no longer viable for the Supreme Court to argue that it “consults” the code of conduct governing lower court judges. And it is not accurate to state that the justices follow the same financial disclosure rules as other federal judges, when there are such flagrant violations. While the Judicial Conference recently updated those rules to reject definitions that Justice Thomas may have thought justified his lack of disclosure, your annual report more than a decade ago on the judiciary cast doubt on whether the Court believes it must abide by those rules —notwithstanding the federal law governing disclosure that expressly applies to Supreme Court justices. It is well past time for the Supreme Court to align with the rest of government in a proper code of ethics enforced by independent investigation and reporting.
Should the Supreme Court continue to refuse to act swiftly on these matters, we will continue to press Congress to act to restore accountability and ethics at the highest Court in the land.
Sincerely,
Meaghan McCabe, (202) 224-2921
