For more than two decades, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas enjoyed luxury trips on private jets and yachts to exotic locales, thanks to the intelligence of his longtime travel companion, Republican mega-donor Harlan Crowe, according to a ProPublica report. New reporting from the nonprofit found that Crow, too funded private schooling of his nephew Thomas, whom the Thomases had brought up as a son — a detail which a friend of justice acknowledged also.
The trips, which most recently included “nine days of trekking through a volcanic archipelago on a superyacht staffed by a team of attendants and a private chef,” and the tuition payments were not disclosed in the justice's financial reports — a potential violation of federal law, ProPublica reports.
Beyond any legal implications, the relationship between Thomas and Crow touches on a number of ethical concerns. Thomas' alleged conduct rises to the level of reprehensible, as some Democrats propose? Complainta political tool based on the consent of a majority in the US House of Representatives and a trial in the Senate, it is the only mechanism for removing judges.
“What he did was so clearly out of bounds that I don't think there's any defense,” he says Jeremy R. Paul, professor of law and former dean of the Northeastern University School of Law. “But I think the political standards of impeachment make impeachment almost impossible right now.”
This isn't the first ethics scandal Thomas has been embroiled in recently. Despite knowing that his wife, Virginia Thomas, was directly involved in efforts to help sway the 2020 election in favor of former President Donald Trump, Thomas did not recuse himself from a series of cases involving the election results — an offense Paul says is equally egregious given the court's high standards.
Failure to disclose Crowe's alleged gifts is a violation of the law that governs all federal officials — not just Supreme Court justices, Paul says. The country would be better served, he says, if Congress established a formal code of conduct that clearly spelled out an ethical standard to which judges would be legally bound.
Paul shows legislation sponsored by U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island, would, among other things, establish a process for holding judges accountable and, among other things, “strengthen exoneration standards … and disclosure rules.”
Thomas has served on the US Supreme Court since 1991. Indeed, his alleged behavior has led to increased calls for judicial reform. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-New York; sent the first volley of impeachment Thursday afternoon.
To date, impeachment efforts have paid off varied results when it comes to federal judges. Since the country's founding, only 15 federal judges have been impeached, while eight have been removed from office. No Supreme Court judge has ever been removed despite two previous impeachment attempts—only one of which resulting in a Senate trial.
Thomas' alleged actions are “terrible for the court's image,” he says Dan Urman, director of the Law and Public Policy Minor at Northeastern, who teaches courses on the Supreme Court. “But it's unlikely anything will come of it.”
“My view is that almost nothing will defeat justice,” says Urman. “If Democrats take over the House in 2024, they could potentially hold impeachment hearings. but there is no way 67 senators will vote to remove Thomas.”
Urman continued: “By then, this will seem like old news. Consider how quickly referral calls are made [Justice Brett] Cavanaugh died in 2019.”
“The real problem is that judges don't adhere to the code of ethics that other federal judges find,” he says. “They are literally above the law. They have the final say on these matters.”
Tanner Stening is a reporter for Northeastern Global News. Email him at t.stening@northeastern.edu. Follow him on Twitter @tstening90.