Source: Chip Somodevilla/Getty
A new finding has revealed it Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed to disclose three other trips paid for by the billionaire Harlan Crowe.
On Thursday (June 13), the Senate Judiciary Committee released documents revealing that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed to disclose that he had taken three additional trips on the private jet owned by billionaire Harlan Crow. The documents were obtained by Democrats on the committee and show the details of the trips — one to Kalispell, Montana near Glacier National Park in 2017, one from Washington 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 moral judgment is producing new information — like what we disclosed today — and making clear that the high court needs an enforceable code of conduct because its members continue to choose not to meet the moment,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) said in a statement. ONE Lawyer of Judge Thomas said he has been in “full compliance” with a new disclosure requirement from the Administrative Office of the US Courts since last year that required judges to disclose all gifts. In a statement, he felt those trips “fell under the 'personal hospitality exception' and were not required to be disclosed by Judge Thomas,” Elliott S. Berke said. A spokesman for Harlan Crow, Michael Zona, said the Texas billionaire provided the committee with “information that meets her requests dating back seven years.” Zona also confirmed that as a result of providing the information, the Commission agreed to end its investigation into Crow's actions.
The revelations have added more controversy and anger to the unethical behavior of Thomas and fellow Supreme Court Justice Thomas Alito in accepting such lavish gifts from Republican donors over the years, as observers note that each donor had vested interests in cases that came in the court. It has led many to call for a stronger code of conduct for the Court with more criminal consequences, noting that the code adopted by the country's highest judicial body late last year was too weak.
