Senate finance committee learned of additional undisclosed travel on Harlan Crow’s jet
Clarence Thomas, the conservative Supreme Court justice who has already helped upend two cases against former president Donald Trump, has once again found himself at the center of an ethics storm after failing to disclose additional private travel – to Hawaii and New Zealand – on a jet owned by rightwing mega-donor Harlan Crow, (pictured below) according to a Democratic senator.
Ron Wyden of Oregon, chair of the Senate finance committee, revealed on Monday that the committee had “obtained international flight records” showing previously undisclosed trips taken by Thomas and his wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, on Crow’s private jet in November 2010.
“I am deeply concerned that Mr. Crow may have been showering a public official with extravagant gifts, then writing off those gifts to lower his tax bill,” Wyden wrote in a letter to Crow’s attorney.
“This concern is only heightened by the committee’s recent discovery of additional undisclosed international travel on Mr. Crow’s private jet by Justice Thomas.”
The records indicate that on November 19, 2010, the Thomases flew from Hawaii to New Zealand on Crow’s private jet, returning a week later on November 27. Crow was also a passenger on these flights.
To date, Justice Thomas has never disclosed this private jet travel on any financial disclosure forms.
The latest luxury jet trip revelation comes amid a swirling ethics scandal and growing demands for judiciary reform.
It follows a series of reports by ProPublica, which won a Pulitzer prize for its investigation into Thomas’s undisclosed luxury travel and gifts, primarily from Crow.
The controversy has sparked broader discussions about Supreme Court reform. In response to mounting pressure, the court adopted its first-ever code of conduct in 2023. However, critics argue that this self-policing arrangement falls short of ensuring true accountability.
Biden Supreme Courts Reform Call
President Joe Biden has seized on this issue, calling for major Supreme Court reforms, including term limits and an enforceable code of conduct. “The most powerful court in the United States shouldn’t be subject to the lowest ethical standards, and conflicts of interest on the Supreme Court cannot go unchecked,” said White House spokesperson Andrew Bates.
Thomas, who was confirmed in 1991 after contentious hearings involving sexual harassment allegations from law professor Anita Hill, is now the longest-serving conservative on a court controlled by Republican nominees, 6-3.
The ethics crisis has been further fueled by apparent political sympathies among the justices and their family members. Ginni Thomas’s participation in Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election has added another layer of controversy to the situation.
Thomas has now participated in two highly controversial legal decisions that have assisted Donald Trump in federal cases against him. Thomas was one of the six conservative justices who voted to give the former president unprecedented immunity protections relating to his conspiracy to overthrow the 2020 election; and now he has presented Judge Aileeen Cannon with the arguments that she used to dismiss the classified documents case against Trump.
In Congress, New York leftist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has led calls for Thomas and his fellow arch-conservative Samuel Alito to be impeached and removed – a political gambit that observers say has little chance of success.
As pressure mounts for greater transparency and accountability within the Supreme Court, Justice Thomas has yet to respond to requests for comment on these latest revelations. His silence only adds to the growing scrutiny of the court’s ethical standards and the potential influence of wealthy benefactors on its members.
The ongoing situation highlights the complex intersection of ethics, transparency, and the administration of justice at the highest level of the American legal system.
As more information comes to light, the debate over Supreme Court reform and judicial ethics is likely to intensify, potentially leading to significant changes in how the court operates and how its members are held accountable.
