In 2019, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas publicly disclosed five trips that were paid for by someone else: a series of teaching and speaking engagements at US law schools and colleges. He reported receiving no gifts.
That version of Thomas’s travel itinerary didn’t include a June 2019 trip revealed this week by the investigative journalism outlet ProPublica: a nine-day vacation to Indonesia that included a flight on a private jet and a stay on a luxury super yacht, both owned by billionaire Republican donor Harlan Crow.
The contrast between Thomas’s reported and unreported activities in 2019 highlights the gaps in information found in the annual financial disclosures filed by justices and federal judges. These forms call for a public accounting of reimbursed travel — transportation, lodging, food, and entertainment — and gifts, but the judiciary has carved out exemptions for “social” and “personal” hospitality.
It’s a distinction that’s raised concerns in the past about whether the judiciary’s existing regulations are enough to expose potential conflicts of interest and ethics violations. In practice, the reports rarely pierce the veil of who the justices are spending their free time with, giving the public limited opportunities to check if individuals with a stake in matters before the court have private access to them.
Bloomberg reviewed copies of the justices’ financial disclosures made available online by government transparency watchdog groups Fix the Court and Open Secrets. Between 2004 and the most recent year available — 2021, Thomas reported a single gift from Crow: a bronze bust of Frederick Douglass valued at $6,484 that he received in 2015. ProPublica reported that Thomas regularly accepted “luxury trips” from Crow over two decades.
The Los Angeles Times reported in 2004 that in previous years Thomas had disclosed a trip paid for by Crow as well as several gifts.
The reimbursed travel that the justices have reported overwhelmingly consists of trips to speak to law students, bar associations, industry groups, and other judges. Justices have also reported comped trips to promote their books, overseas teaching gigs during the Supreme Court’s summer recess, and awards ceremonies.
Rarely, personal travel shows up. The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg reported a 2018 “tourist” trip to Israel and Jordan paid for by billionaire businessman Morris Kahn. Retired Justice Stephen Breyer reported a 2013 trip on the private plane of another billionaire, David Rubinstein.
The gifts reported by the justices offer little insight into who they’re socializing with and whether they’re receiving the type of expensive hospitality similar to what ProPublica reported.
Items shared in these disclosures included a pair of $699 cowboy boots that Justice Neil Gorsuch received at a Texas Supreme Court Historical Society dinner; a $579 football helmet received by Chief Justice John Roberts from Mississippi federal judges; a $3,000 bronze case of a hand gifted to Justice Samuel Alito by an Italian studio; and a signed first edition of a book by the late Justice Felix Frankfurter valued at $499 that a law school gave to Justice Elena Kagan.
The justices, along with all federal judges, are required to file annual financial disclosures under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, one of a string of government transparency laws adopted in the wake of the Watergate scandal. The federal judiciary separately has adopted a code of conduct and a disciplinary process for addressing violations. Supreme Court justices aren’t bound to follow that, although Roberts has described it as a “key source of guidance.”
Besides reimbursed trips and gifts, judges have to disclose any outside income and their financial investments. Judges and justices are required to recuse from cases where they have a conflict, and the reports are meant to serve as a check on that.
Earlier this year, the judiciary adopted new guidance that narrowed the type of hospitality that the justices and judges don’t have to report. It makes clear that stays at hotels and other commercial properties, private transportation, and travel expenses covered by a third-party separate from the host, must be reported. But it still allows judges to not report hospitality “of a personal, non-business nature.”
Judicial ethics expert Stephen Gillers said those revisions helped close a “giant loophole” and that the hospitality carve-out continued to make sense in certain respects; judges shouldn’t have to share every time they vacation with family, he said. But he added there could still be scenarios where justices and judges don’t have to disclose the types of trips that ProPublica reported Thomas enjoyed at Crow’s expense.
Gillers also pointed out that the reporting schedule delays the public’s ability to check for any conflicts of interest and that the rules don’t require judges to share who else was in attendance during a particular trip.
ProPublica reported that Crow’s other guests while Thomas was staying at his private resort included corporate executives, Republican donors, and Leonard Leo, the prominent conservative legal activist. Crow told ProPublica that he was “unaware” of his friends trying to lobby the justice and wouldn’t invite anyone who had that intention.
“A wealthy donor using his or her own money can shower the judge or justice with princely vacations and skirt the reporting obligations in the new rules. It may be that we need something tougher,” Gillers said.
