Justice Clarence Thomas’ Undisclosed Luxury Trips

In late June 2019, Justice Clarence Thomas embarked on a luxurious vacation to Indonesia, following the U.S. Supreme Court’s final opinion release of the term. He traveled with his wife for nine days of island-hopping aboard a private superyacht. The total cost of such a trip, had Thomas chartered the plane and yacht himself, might have exceeded $500,000. Real estate magnate and Republican donor Harlan Crow owned both assets, sparing Thomas the expense.

For over 20 years, Thomas has enjoyed numerous luxury trips courtesy of Crow. These trips included traveling on Crow’s private jet and staying at his lavish properties, without being disclosed in Thomas’ financial reports. Legal experts suggest this might violate disclosure laws established post-Watergate, which mandate Supreme Court justices to declare most gifts.

Justice Clarence Thomas’ travel and vacations with Harlan Crow are unprecedented in Supreme Court history.

Despite the implications, Thomas has not responded to questions regarding these trips. Crow stated he extended hospitality to Thomas as he would to any dear friend, not seeking to influence legal opinions. This raises ethical concerns, as judges must avoid appearances of impropriety.

Federal judges hold a unique position of public trust, with life tenure meant to shield them from political pressures. A code of conduct exists for lower court judges, requiring them to avoid impropriety, while the Supreme Court polices itself. Members of Congress face stricter gift restrictions compared to the high court justices.

Thomas’ ethical approach has sparked public interest, especially after he didn’t recuse himself from cases involving his wife’s political activity. This situation generated criticism but had no recourse for appeal. Crow, known for his conservative political ties, became friends with Thomas, extending luxurious invitations without clear legal or political expectation.

Crow has funded various conservative judicial movements, yet maintains that his friendship with Thomas remains separate from legal influence. Historical reports highlight Crow’s generosity, like donating to groups linked to Ginni Thomas, but detailed travel arrangements have surfaced only recently.

The ProPublica investigation revealed Thomas’ travel via Crow’s yacht and private jet, highlighting undisclosed trips to several global destinations. These excursions, considered gifts, appear not to comply with required financial disclosures. Transportation, especially via private jets or yachts not reimbursed, demands transparency under judicial rules.

Thomas wears customized polo shirts from Crow’s travels and has stayed at private resorts without reported reimbursement. Updated judiciary filing instructions now clarify that such trips require disclosure, underscoring gaps in Thomas’ past reporting.

Despite the luxurious travel and rich company Thomas keeps, he often presents himself with humble preferences, such as enjoying common American locales. This contrast raises questions about judicial accountability and public perception, underscoring the broader turmoil in how Supreme Court ethics are managed.