The Supreme Court has been at the center of American political discourse over the past year after the divisive ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which essentially held there is no federal right to an abortion. Members of the court faced fierce backlash from elected officials and the public in the wake of the decision, which has yet to truly dissipate. Just this week, the Supreme Court upheld an execution sentence despite the jurors on the case potentially being misinformed about vital details. Given the controversial nature of its recent rulings, it is little surprise that the Supreme Court’s approval ratings have reached record lows in the last 12 months. Now, Justice Clarence Thomas has found himself embroiled in a serious ethics scandal that has led to calls for investigations of his financial disclosures. Justice Thomas is no stranger to controversy, as his wife Ginni Thomas supported the Jan. 6 insurrection and testified to the Jan. 6 committee that she believes the lies that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump. Now, Justice Thomas has failed to make public numerous luxurious gifts provided to him by conservative megadonor Harlan Crow. The Supreme Court justices — such as Justice Thomas — can far too easily skirt the lines created to avoid conflicts of interest between the judiciary and powerful individuals and corporations, and it is far past time to implement stronger boundaries between the Court and such outside parties.
The breadth of the gifts that Justice Thomas accepted from Crow is staggering. Justice Thomas has taken paid-for trips on Crow’s private jet and yacht for upward of 20 years without ever including them in his financial statements. According to ProPublica, which initially uncovered the extent of the gifts, “the extent and frequency of Crow’s apparent gifts to [Justice] Thomas have no known precedent in the modern history of the U.S. Supreme Court.” A second investigation found that Crow bought multiple properties in Georgia from Justice Thomas and other members of his family, including a house Justice Thomas’ elderly mother resided in. Once again, Justice Thomas did not disclose the purchase, potentially putting him in violation of a law that requires members of the government to provide details about any real estate deal worth over $1000. Justice Thomas may have also violated ethics laws by failing to report the trips he took with Crow. Although the Supreme Court has fewer regulations and laws in place regarding gifts and donations than Congress or the president, this is because the Supreme Court is meant to be a much more impartial actor than the other branches of government. But the extent of Justice Thomas’ personal and financial ties with Crow shows that members of the Supreme Court still have plenty of personal discretion if they wish to hide such information. If Justice Thomas was able to hide over 20 years worth of highly expensive dealings, it is obvious that members of the Court must be held to a much higher standard in disclosing such transactions.
Perhaps if Crow were an apolitical actor, such gifts would not matter much. But this could not be further from the truth. While perhaps not as well known as other massive conservative donors such as the Koch brothers or Peter Thiel, Crow seems to prefer it that way. The man who lavished massive gifts on a Supreme Court justice has both a signed copy of Mein Kampf and a garden featuring statues of his favorite dictators. Crow had come under fire during the 2016 presidential campaign as Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) held a fundraiser at his house, which also holds a significant collection of Nazi memorabilia. But somehow Crow managed to avoid serious notoriety and kept spending time with Justice Thomas. The problems are inherent when someone who has a signed copy of Mein Kampf is paying for a Supreme Court justice’s lavish vacations every summer for two decades. Justice Thomas cannot continue to claim he is an impartial arbiter in massively important cases when these are the people he spends his time with. If the Supreme Court is serious about salvaging its already floundering credibility, it must act quickly and decisively to prevent any similar interactions in the future.
The fallout from Justice Thomas’ ethics scandal has been serious and continues to spread. Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) has publicly called for Justice Thomas’ resignation, and other congressional Democrats have urged investigations into his finances. Given the nature and level of corruption uncovered in Justice Thomas’ personal life, such seemingly drastic steps seem entirely justified. Justice Thomas’ case is yet another example in a long line of instances that prove members of government must detangle themselves from wealthy and powerful private actors. The Supreme Court is supposed to remain an impartial judicial body. If its justices cannot live up to that standard, they deserve to face the consequences for letting down the mission of their office.
Theodore Brita is a junior majoring in political science.