Source: Chip Somodevilla / Getty
A new finding has disclosed that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed to reveal three more trips paid for by billionaire Harlan Crow.
On Thursday (June 13), the Senate Judiciary Committee released documents that revealed that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed to disclose that he had taken three additional trips on the private jet belonging to billionaire Harlan Crow. The documents were acquired by Democrats on the committee, and they show the details of the trips – one to Kalispell, Montana near Glacier National Park in 2017, one from Washington D.C. to his hometown of Savannah, Georgia in March 2019, and one to Northern California in 2021.
“The Senate Judiciary Committee’s ongoing investigation into the Supreme Court’s ethical crisis is producing new information – like what we’ve revealed today – and makes it crystal clear that the highest court needs an enforceable code of conduct, because its members continue to choose not to meet the moment,” Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee said in a statement. A lawyer for Justice Thomas said that he has “fully complied” with a new disclosure requirement from the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts from last year that compelled judges to disclose all gifts. In a statement, he felt these trips “fell under the ‘personal hospitality exemption’ and was not required to be disclosed by Justice Thomas,” said Elliott S. Berke. A representative for Harlan Crow, Michael Zona, said that the Texas billionaire provided the committee with “information responsive to its requests going back seven years.” Zona also confirmed that as a result of providing the information, the Committee agreed to end its probe into Crow’s actions.
The revelations have added more controversy and outrage over the unethical behavior of Thomas and fellow Supreme Court Justice Thomas Alito by accepting such lavish gifts from Republican donors throughout the years, as observers note that each donor had special interests in cases that came before the court. It’s led many to demand that there be a stronger code of ethics for the Court with more punitive effects, noting that the code adopted by the highest judicial body in the land at the end of last year was too weak.