On Thursday, ProPublica published a blockbuster report suggesting ethical recklessness on the part of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
The report details years of luxury trips and other gifts that Justice Thomas apparently received courtesy of Republican donor Harlan Crow, including a nine-day cruise in Indonesia with passage on Mr. Crow’s private jet and superyacht, perks that could have cost Justice Thomas more than $500,000. The justice took Crow-sponsored trips virtually every year for more than two decades without disclosing them, the report found. “The extent and frequency of Crow’s apparent gifts to Thomas have no known precedent in the modern history of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
The two are friends who met after Justice Thomas joined the court. The gifts started flowing soon after, ProPublica reported. Mr. Crow denies that any lobbying took place on his trips, even those attended by corporate executives and conservative leaders, calling them “gatherings of friends.” Mr. Crow also stressed that Justice Thomas never asked for his hospitality.
But he did accept it — even though Mr. Crow sits on the board of conservative think tanks whose fellows file amicus briefs with the court, the report notes. Ethics experts who consulted with ProPublica suggested that Justice Thomas might have violated disclosure requirements. Although justices need not report dinner or lodging at a friend’s house, ProPublica notes, recent filing instructions make clear that they must disclose substantial gifts of transportation; private jet rides and yacht cruises count. At a minimum, Justice Thomas should have taken this simple step.
Justice Thomas’s reported behavior raises three questions: In what circumstances should justices refuse gifts? When should they disclose the ones they do accept? When should they recuse themselves from cases in which they might have an ethical conflict? The court should clearly answer these questions in an ethics code that it applies to itself. However, the justices have no such code, although they consult ethics guidelines that apply to lower courts. The court should also create an ethics panel — perhaps composed of retired senior federal judges — that could issue guidance on judicial conduct, which would allow case-by-case review when ethical questions arise.
Reform is overdue. The Supreme Court has no army or police department that can enforce its rulings outside its walls. It draws its power from Americans’ willingness to believe in the independence and fairness underlying the dictates of nine unelected lawyers in robes, whose perceived legitimacy stems from an assumption they will put fidelity to the law above party, policy preference, ideology or personal relationships. For the sake of the institution and its legitimacy, the justices need to display respect for the trust that should go with the lifetime appointments they have been given — or they will continue to see an erosion of public faith.
— The Washington Post
