Unethical Clarence Thomas: Which Law Was Broken?

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been accused of breaking the law and violating federal ethics laws by accepting lavish gifts, loans, and vacations from billionaire GOP donor Harlan Crow, without disclosing them. This includes global vacations, an RV, private tuition for his grand-nephew, and property deals. Thomas's wife, Virginia Ginni Thomas, has also been involved in controversies, such as lobbying to overturn the results of the 2020 election and urging Trump's chief of staff to work against the election results. These scandals have raised questions about Thomas's impartiality and potential conflicts of interest, with lawmakers demanding his recusal from related cases and the creation of binding ethics rules for the Supreme Court. Despite the allegations, Thomas has faced limited accountability and no legal repercussions.

Failure to disclose lavish gifts and vacations from billionaire GOP donor Harlan Crow

Clarence Thomas's Failure to Disclose Gifts from Harlan Crow

In April 2023, a ProPublica report revealed that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas had failed to disclose lavish gifts and vacations from billionaire GOP donor Harlan Crow. The report, which spanned two decades, revealed that Thomas had vacationed on Crow's superyacht and private jet, spent time at his ranch in East Texas, and attended the male-only Bohemian Grove retreat. Thomas also spent a week each summer at Crow's private resort in New York's Adirondacks, Camp Topridge. These vacations were estimated to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

In addition to the vacations, Thomas also received other gifts from Crow, including a bronze bust of abolitionist Frederick Douglass valued at $6,484, which he did disclose, and a fancy RV, which he did not disclose. Furthermore, Crow paid for private tuition for Thomas' grand-nephew and purchased several properties from Thomas and his mother.

The failure to disclose these gifts and vacations appeared to violate a federal law that requires judges, including Supreme Court justices, to detail gifts above a certain value. This law exempts "personal hospitality," but the extent of the gifts and their frequency raised questions about the appropriateness of the relationship between Thomas and Crow.

The Impact and Response

The revelations about Thomas's gifts and vacations sparked calls for new ethics rules and a code of conduct for the Supreme Court. Some legal experts argued that Thomas's actions corroded public trust in the Court, while others questioned whether existing laws could be constitutionally applied to Supreme Court justices.

Despite the controversy, Thomas faced no legal or institutional repercussions. The Judicial Conference, the federal judiciary's top policymaking body, declined to refer Thomas to the Department of Justice for investigation, claiming that Thomas's amended disclosure forms addressed the issues. However, critics argued that this set a precedent of impunity for Supreme Court justices, who are not formally bound by any code of conduct.

Failure to recuse himself from cases involving the 2020 election and the January 6th attack

In early 2022, US lawmakers called on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to explain his failure to recuse himself from cases involving the 2020 election and the January 6th attack on the Capitol. Thomas's wife, Virginia "Ginni" Thomas, was found to have played a pivotal role in urging multiple states to overturn their results in the 2020 election and exchanged dozens of text messages with Trump's Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows, urging him to continue their scheme of election fraud. Ginni Thomas also attended the pro-Trump rally that preceded the January 6th attack on the Capitol and was a board member for a conservative political group that helped lead the "Stop the Steal" movement.

In a letter to Justice Thomas, lawmakers wrote:

> Justice Thomas’s participation in cases involving the 2020 election and the January 6th attack is exceedingly difficult to reconcile with federal ethics requirements... Justice Thomas has neither disclosed the extent of his knowledge about Ms. Thomas’s activities nor recused himself from multiple Court cases involving the 2020 election and the attempted insurrection that followed.

The letter also stated that Thomas's participation in these cases raised "serious questions" about his ability to be impartial and that he had an "obligation not to sit in any case related to the election, the Jan. 6 committee or the Capitol invasion."

In addition to calling on Justice Thomas to explain his failure to recuse himself, lawmakers also sought his recusal from future cases involving efforts to overturn the 2020 election or the January 6th attack. They argued that Thomas's impartiality could reasonably be questioned, given his wife's involvement in efforts to overturn the election results.

The lawmakers' letter also highlighted previous ethics breaches by Justice Thomas, including his failure to disclose his wife's income from her work at the Heritage Foundation between 2003 and 2007, totalling $686,589, in violation of the Ethics in Government Act. They called on Chief Justice John Roberts to create a binding Code of Conduct for the Supreme Court, with enforceable provisions and a requirement for all Justices to issue written recusal decisions.

Violation of the Ethics in Government Act by not reporting his wife's income

Between 2003 and 2007, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed to disclose $686,589 in his wife's income from her work at the Heritage Foundation, violating the Ethics in Government Act. This has brought about scrutiny from lawmakers, who have demanded a written explanation from Justice Thomas and called on Chief Justice Roberts to create a binding, enforceable Code of Conduct for the Supreme Court.

The Ethics in Government Act requires government officials, including Supreme Court justices, to file annual reports disclosing gifts and income accepted from outside sources. Justice Thomas's disclosure omissions also implicate federal prohibitions against making false statements to the government and raise questions about his compliance with federal tax laws.

In addition to the income from the Heritage Foundation, Justice Thomas also failed to report other instances of his wife's income. In 2011, he admitted to omitting hundreds of thousands of dollars of his spouse's income from his disclosures, attributing it to a "misunderstanding of the filing instructions".

The lawmakers' letter to Justice Thomas and Chief Justice Roberts expressed concern about the serious potential conflicts of interest presented by Ms. Thomas's efforts to overturn the 2020 election results and Justice Thomas's failure to recuse himself from related cases. They also highlighted the Supreme Court's pattern of major ethics failures, including the acceptance of "expensive memberships and memorabilia, donations to causes they support, and lavish international trips" by multiple justices.

The lawmakers' letter requested that Justice Thomas issue a written explanation for his failure to recuse himself and recuse himself from any future Supreme Court cases concerning the 2020 election and the January 6 attack on the Capitol. They also called on Chief Justice Roberts to commit to creating a binding Code of Conduct for the Court, including enforceable provisions and a requirement for all justices to issue written recusal decisions.

Refusal to be investigated for misconduct by the Department of Justice

In 2025, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was at the centre of a scandal regarding his acceptance of lavish gifts, loans, and vacations from billionaire Republican donor and real estate developer Harlan Crow. This included luxury trips on Crow's private jets and yacht, as well as a $267,000 loan for a luxury motor coach. These gifts were omitted from Thomas' financial disclosure forms, as required by the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.

Despite calls for an investigation by Democratic senators, the Judicial Conference, the federal judiciary's top policymaking body, refused to refer Thomas to the Department of Justice. Judicial Conference Secretary Robert J. Conrad Jr. stated that Thomas' amended disclosure forms "address several issues" and made a jurisdictional claim that they did not have the authority to take any action.

The Judicial Conference's refusal was partly attributed to legal uncertainties. In a letter to Democratic senators, U.S. District Judge Robert Conrad expressed that existing procedures do not clearly authorise such referrals for Supreme Court justices. He also stated that he was confident that Justice Thomas had amended his financial reports to accurately reflect his donations.

The decision not to refer the matter to the Department of Justice was met with criticism. Some argued that the Judicial Conference was gutting the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 and bending the knee to the Supreme Court. There were concerns that the lack of accountability threatened public confidence in the judiciary and highlighted the need for a transparent mechanism to investigate ethics violations.

Changing his stance on press freedom

In 1991, during his confirmation hearings, Clarence Thomas stated that he had no agenda to change free speech protections established by the New York Times v Sullivan ruling. He said:

> We should protect our first amendment freedoms as much as possible.

However, in recent years, Thomas has questioned the landmark 1964 ruling, writing in 2019, 2021 and 2023 that the decision allows media organisations to "cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity".

This shift in opinion is widely believed to have been influenced by Thomas's own experiences with the press. During his confirmation hearings, journalists were "prying into [his] career and life story", including his leadership of the US Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, the church he and his wife attended, and his sister's disclosure that she'd had an abortion.

Thomas has faced extensive reporting, led by ProPublica, about his failure to declare lavish gifts from right-wingers with business before the court. This may have also influenced his change of heart regarding press freedom.

Thomas's evolving views on press freedom are described in "Murder the Truth: Fear, the First Amendment and a Secret Campaign to Protect the Powerful" by David Enrich, a New York Times reporter.

Frequently asked questions