Yet another lesson that two contradictory realities can exist simultaneously: First, ordinary Americans in Washington, D.C. proved that a jury of peers can push aside the thick smoke of deceit and disinformation to unanimously proclaim that members of the January 6 mob were engaged in insurrection. Then, a New York City jury declared that their leader, our former president, engaged in sexual battery. All the while, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, emboldened by his silent fellow jurists, was revealed to be a hypocrite/grifter—simultaneously, a major victory and a profound failure for the judicial process. So, while some are finally held accountable, members of our highest court try their best to live above the law.
Some history. The colonists were driven “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity …” I want to focus for the moment on the task of establishing Justice.
Having endured the tyranny of an all-powerful King, the Founders’ experience with that concentration of authority led them to design a system of checks and balances, a mandated sharing of power between the Executive, Legislative, and the Judicial branches.
James Madison wrote in Federalist #51: “You must first enable the government to controul the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to controul itself. A dependence on the people is no doubt the primary controul on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions … We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power; where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other; that the private interest of every individual, may be a centinel over the public rights. These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the state.” (Emphasis added.)
These days, one can clearly see the great failings of our corrupt Congress-folk—freed by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United—unwilling to control themselves as they choose the wishes of their wealthy campaign contributors over the clear desires of their constituents for sensible gun legislation, protecting women’s healthcare, and defending the right to vote.
Article III of our Constitution provides, “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Congress provided greater details in the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789: “the supreme court of the United States shall consist of a chief justice and five associate justices, any four of whom shall be a quorum, and shall hold annually at the seat of government two sessions, the one commencing the first Monday of February, and the other the first Monday of August … That the United States shall be, and they hereby are divided into thirteen districts …”
The Act set out a complex system of district and circuit courts, and required judges to take the following oath, “I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me as, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution, and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
The act also delineates the great power of the Supreme Court to determine “the validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under the United States” deciding whether these are either “repugnant to the constitution” or “in favour” of the Constitution. (Emphasis added.)
ProPublica, in a series of investigatory reports, has uncovered multiple instances where Supreme Court justices have received substantial financial favors that may very well have put them in debt, consciously or subconsciously, to wealthy and influential individuals with interests under consideration by the Court. Despite the legitimate concerns of some that Congress might interfere in the work of the Supreme Court, and thus breach the separation of powers, the intent of the Founders and the Constitution itself, along with the aforementioned Federal Judiciary Act of 1789 and the 1922 act establishing the Judicial Conference, offer clear evidence of the right of Congress to provide the very necessary kinds of checks on the judiciary for which Madison was arguing. Not to needlessly intrude on our delicate balance of power, but in service of the continuing need to establish and maintain justice.
On April 6, 2023, ProPublica published “Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire,” reporting:
“In late June 2019, right after the U.S. Supreme Court released its final opinion of the term, Justice Clarence Thomas boarded a large private jet headed to Indonesia. He and his wife were going on vacation: nine days of island-hopping in a volcanic archipelago on a superyacht staffed by a coterie of attendants and a private chef.
“If Thomas had chartered the plane and the 162-foot yacht himself, the total cost of the trip could have exceeded $500,000. Fortunately for him, that wasn’t necessary: He was on vacation with real estate magnate and Republican megadonor Harlan Crow, who owned the jet — and the yacht, too.
“For more than two decades, Thomas has accepted luxury trips virtually every year from the Dallas businessman without disclosing them, documents and interviews show. A public servant who has a salary of $285,000, he has vacationed on Crow’s superyacht around the globe. He flies on Crow’s Bombardier Global 5000 jet. He has gone with Crow to the Bohemian Grove, the exclusive California all-male retreat, and to Crow’s sprawling ranch in East Texas. And Thomas typically spends about a week every summer at Crow’s private resort in the Adirondacks. 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. These trips appeared nowhere on Thomas’ financial disclosures.” (Emphasis added.)
ProPublica explained the significance of its story:
“Federal judges sit in a unique position of public trust. They have lifetime tenure, a privilege intended to insulate them from the pressures and potential corruption of politics. A code of conduct for federal judges below the Supreme Court requires them to avoid even the ‘appearance of impropriety.’ Members of the high court, Chief Justice John Roberts has written, ‘consult’ that code for guidance. The Supreme Court is left almost entirely to police itself.
“There are few restrictions on what gifts justices can accept. That’s in contrast to the other branches of government. Members of Congress are generally prohibited from taking gifts worth $50 or more and would need pre-approval from an ethics committee to take many of the trips Thomas has accepted from Crow.
“Thomas’ approach to ethics has already attracted public attention. Last year, Thomas didn’t recuse himself from cases that touched on the involvement of his wife, Ginni, in efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. While his decision generated outcry, it could not be appealed.
“Crow met Thomas after he became a justice. The pair have become genuine friends, according to people who know both men. Over the years, some details of Crow’s relationship with the Thomases have emerged. In 2011, The New York Times reported on Crow’s generosity toward the justice. That same year, Politico revealed that Crow had given half a million dollars to a Tea Party group founded by Ginni Thomas, which also paid her a $120,000 salary. But the full scale of Crow’s benefactions has never been revealed.” (Emphasis added.)
The Washington Post followed up a day later: “Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said Friday he had been advised ‘by colleagues and others in the judiciary’ that luxury trips financed by a close billionaire friend and conservative activist should be considered personal hospitality that did not have to be disclosed.”
In the statement issued through the Supreme Court’s public information office, Justice Thomas said Harlan and Kathy Crow were among the “dearest friends” of the justice and his wife Virginia “Ginni” Thomas. “As friends do, we have joined them on a number of family trips during the more than quarter century we have known them. Early in my tenure at the Court, I sought guidance from my colleagues and others in the judiciary, and was advised that this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the Court, was not reportable.” (Emphasis added.)

The Washington Post continues: “Federal law mandates that top officials from the three branches of government, including the Supreme Court, file annual forms detailing their finances, outside income and spouses’ sources of income, with each branch determining its own reporting standards. Judges are prohibited from accepting gifts from anyone with business before the court. Until recently, however, the judicial branch had not clearly defined an exemption for gifts considered ‘personal hospitality.’”
In response to the ProPublica reports, Harlan Crow released a statement downplaying the significance of the gifts.

As ProPublica points out, Crow’s reassurance that his friendship with Justice Thomas had in no way compromised the Justice’s objectivity might not be completely accurate. ProPublica notes that one of the recurring perks Thomas received was his weekly summer vacations at Crow’s private lakeside resort in the Adirondacks:
“Camp Topridge, sits in a remote corner of the Adirondacks in upstate New York. Closed off from the public by ornate wooden gates, the 105-acre property, once the summer retreat of the same heiress who built Mar-a-Lago, features an artificial waterfall and a great hall where Crow’s guests are served meals prepared by private chefs. Inside, there’s clear evidence of Crow and Thomas’ relationship: a painting of the two men at the resort, sitting outdoors smoking cigars alongside conservative political operatives …
“During just one trip in July 2017, Thomas’ fellow guests included executives at Verizon and PricewaterhouseCoopers, major Republican donors and one of the leaders of the American Enterprise Institute, a pro-business conservative think tank, according to records reviewed by ProPublica. The painting of Thomas at Topridge shows him in conversation with Leonard Leo, the Federalist Society leader regarded as an architect of the Supreme Court’s recent turn to the right.”
These disclosures prompted Senator Dick Durbin and the other Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to send a letter on April 10, 2023 to Chief Justice John Roberts expressing their concern about what they regarded as Justice Thomas’ ethical lapses:
“U.S. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, along with all Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats, sent a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts calling on the Chief Justice to investigate a ProPublica report that Justice Clarence Thomas accepted and failed to disclose 20 years’ worth of lavish gifts and luxury travel from prominent Republican donor Harlan Crow … [announcing] that the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the need to restore confidence in the Supreme Court’s ethical standards.”

On April 13, 2023, ProPublica added to the story with their report “Billionaire Harlan Crow Bought Property From Clarence Thomas. The Justice Didn’t Disclose the Deal.” ProPublica explains:
“In 2014, one of Texas billionaire Harlan Crow’s companies purchased a string of properties on a quiet residential street in Savannah, Georgia. It wasn’t a marquee acquisition for the real estate magnate, just an old single-story home and two vacant lots down the road. What made it noteworthy were the people on the other side of the deal: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his relatives.
“The transaction marks the first known instance of money flowing from the Republican megadonor to the Supreme Court justice. The Crow company bought the properties for $133,363 from three co-owners — Thomas, his mother and the family of Thomas’ late brother …
“The purchase put Crow in an unusual position: He now owned the house where the justice’s elderly mother was living. Soon after the sale was completed, contractors began work on tens of thousands of dollars of improvements on the two-bedroom, one-bathroom home, which looks out onto a patch of orange trees. The renovations included a carport, a repaired roof and a new fence and gates, according to city permit records and blueprints.
“A federal disclosure law passed after Watergate requires justices and other officials to disclose the details of most real estate sales over $1,000. Thomas never disclosed his sale of the Savannah properties. That appears to be a violation of the law, four ethics law experts told ProPublica …
“It’s unclear if Crow paid fair market value for the Thomas properties. Crow also bought several other properties on the street and paid significantly less than his deal with the Thomases. One example: In 2013, he bought a pair of properties on the same block — a vacant lot and a small house — for a total of $40,000 …
“A Crow Holdings company soon began paying the roughly $1,500 in annual property taxes on Thomas’ mother’s house, according to county tax records. The taxes had previously been paid by Clarence and Ginni Thomas.
“Crow still owns Thomas’ mother’s home, which the now-94-year-old continued to live in through at least 2020, according to public records and social media. Two neighbors told ProPublica she still lives there. Crow did not respond to questions about whether he has charged her rent.”
Concern in Congress mounted. On April 20, 2023, Senator Durbin invited Chief Justice John Roberts to a May 2 hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee: “there has been a steady stream of revelations regarding Justices falling short of the ethical standards expected of other federal judges and, indeed, of public servants generally. These problems were already apparent back in 2011, and the Court’s decade-long failure to address them has contributed to a crisis of public confidence … The time has come for a new public conversation on ways to restore confidence in the Court’s ethical standards. I invite you to join it, and I look forward to your response.’” (Emphasis added.)
On April 25, 2023, Chief Justice Roberts declined the invitation: “Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee by the Chief Justice of the United States is exceedingly rare, as one might expect in light of separation of powers concerns and the importance of preserving judicial independence.”
He attached a Statement of Ethics signed by the entire Court, John G. Roberts Jr., Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson:
“The undersigned Justices today reaffirm and restate foundational ethics principles and practices to which they subscribe in carrying out their responsibilities as Members of the Supreme Court of the United States. This statement aims to provide new clarity to the bar and to the public on how the Justices address certain recurring issues, and also seeks to dispel some common misconceptions. The Justices, like other federal judges, consult a wide variety of authorities to address specific ethical issues. They may turn to judicial opinions, treatises, scholarly articles, disciplinary decisions, and the historical practice of the Court and the federal judiciary. They may also seek advice from the Court’s Legal Office and from their colleagues. In 1922, Congress instituted the Judicial Conference of the United States as an instrument to manage the lower federal courts. The Judicial Conference, which binds lower courts, does not supervise the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, for a century, the Conference has contributed to the development of a body of ethical rules and practices — including through the lower court Code of Conduct — which are of significant importance to the Justices.” (Emphasis added.)
It is interesting to note how the Justices use terms like “consult,” “may,” and “seek advice” along with reminding Congress that the Judicial Conference of the United States legislation of 1922, while setting for the lower courts ethical procedures “of significant importance,” nevertheless exempts them from such requirements.
The Washington Post added Leonard Leo, the exceedingly effective ultra-conservative head of the Federalist Society to the Thomas story on May 4:
“Leonard Leo arranged for the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to be paid tens of thousands of dollars for consulting work just over a decade ago, specifying that her name be left off billing paperwork, according to documents reviewed by The Washington Post.
“In January 2012, Leo instructed the GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway to bill a nonprofit group he advises and use that money to pay Virginia ‘Ginni’ Thomas, the documents show. The same year, the nonprofit, the Judicial Education Project, filed a brief to the Supreme Court in a landmark voting rights case. Leo, a key figure in a network of nonprofits that has worked to support the nominations of conservative judges, told Conway that he wanted her to ‘give’ Ginni Thomas ‘another $25K,’ the documents show. He emphasized that the paperwork should have ‘No mention of Ginni, of course.’”
As the New York Times reported on April 30. 2023, Leonard Leo’s reach into the innermost workings of the Supreme Court was quite extensive. Their article, “How Scalia Law School Became a Key Friend of the Court,” highlights how Leonard Leo and the Scalia Law School at George Mason University “cultivated ties to justices, with generous pay and unusual perks. In turn, it gained prestige, donations and influence.” The article explains:
“In the fall of 2017, an administrator at George Mason University’s law school circulated a confidential memo about a prospective hire.
“Just months earlier, Neil M. Gorsuch, a federal appeals court judge from Colorado, had won confirmation to the Supreme Court seat left vacant by the death of Antonin Scalia, the conservative icon for whom the school was named. For President Donald J. Trump, bringing Judge Gorsuch to Washington was the first step toward fulfilling a campaign promise to cement the high court unassailably on the right. For the leaders of the law school, bringing the new justice to teach at Scalia Law was a way to advance their own parallel ambition.
“‘Establishing and building a strong relationship with Justice Gorsuch during his first full term on the bench could be a game-changing opportunity for Scalia Law, as it looks to accelerate its already meteoric rise to the top rank of law schools in the United States,’ read the memo, contained in one of thousands of internal university emails obtained by The New York Times.
“By the winter of 2019, the law school faculty would include not just Justice Gorsuch but also two other members of the court, Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett M. Kavanaugh — all deployed as strategic assets in a campaign to make Scalia Law, a public school in the Virginia suburbs of Washington, a Yale or Harvard of conservative legal scholarship and influence.
“The law school had long stood out for its rightward leanings and ties to conservative benefactors. Its renaming after Justice Scalia in 2016 was the result of a $30 million gift brokered by Leonard Leo, prime architect of a grand project then gathering force to transform the federal judiciary and further the legal imperatives of the right. An ascendant law school at George Mason would be part of that plan. Since the rebranding, the law school has developed an unusually expansive relationship with the justices of the high court — welcoming them as teachers but also as lecturers and special guests at school events. Scalia Law, in turn, has marketed that closeness with the justices as a unique draw to prospective students and donors.” (Emphasis added.)
ProPublica wasn’t finished with its investigation of the deep financial links between Justice Thomas and Harlan Crow: “Clarence Thomas Had a Child in Private School. Harlan Crow Paid the Tuition.”

They wrote:
“In 2008, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas decided to send his teenage grandnephew to Hidden Lake Academy, a private boarding school in the foothills of northern Georgia. The boy, Mark Martin, was far from home. For the previous decade, he had lived with the justice and his wife in the suburbs of Washington, D.C. Thomas had taken legal custody of Martin when he was 6 years old and had recently told an interviewer he was ‘raising him as a son.’
“Tuition at the boarding school ran more than $6,000 a month. But Thomas did not cover the bill. A bank statement for the school from July 2009, buried in unrelated court filings, shows the source of Martin’s tuition payment for that month: the company of billionaire real estate magnate Harlan Crow.
“The payments extended beyond that month, according to Christopher Grimwood, a former administrator at the school. Crow paid Martin’s tuition the entire time he was a student there, which was about a year, Grimwood told ProPublica …
“Martin attended a second boarding school, Randolph-Macon Academy in Virginia. ‘Harlan said he was paying for the tuition at Randolph-Macon Academy as well,’ Grimwood said, recalling a conversation he had with Crow during a visit to the billionaire’s Adirondacks estate.
“ProPublica interviewed Martin, his former classmates and former staff at both schools. The exact total Crow paid for Martin’s education over the years remains unclear. If he paid for all four years at the two schools, the price tag could have exceeded $150,000, according to public records of tuition rate at the schools.
“Thomas did not report the tuition payments from Crow on his annual financial disclosures. Several years earlier, Thomas disclosed a gift of $5,000 for Martin’s education from another friend. It is not clear why he reported that payment but not Crow’s. The tuition payments add to the picture of how the Republican megadonor has helped fund the lives of Thomas and his family.” (Emphasis added.)
Soon after, expanding upon ProPublica’s story, the Huffington Post published an article entitled “Clarence Thomas Said His Billionaire Friend Didn’t Come Before The Court — But His Business Interests Did”:
“When news broke that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas enjoyed hundreds of thousands of dollars in luxury vacations, private yacht and jet travel, proceeds from the sale of his ancestral home, and numerous other gifts from billionaire real estate magnate Harlan Crow, the justice proclaimed that he had done nothing wrong by arguing, among other things, that Crow ‘did not have business before the Court.’
“It is true that Crow, who took over his father Trammell Crow’s business Crow Holdings Inc. in 1988, has not himself been a party in a case before the Supreme Court. But that doesn’t mean his financial interests as a real estate owner, landlord and commercial, residential and industrial developer haven’t come before the Supreme Court over the course of Thomas’ 31-year tenure.
“Those interests can be seen in a series of cases related to racial discrimination in housing, the Clean Water Act and rent control that either have come or are expected to come before the court soon. A trade group that is currently chaired by Ken Valach, who took over as CEO of Crow Holdings Inc. from Crow in 2015, filed a series of friend-of-the-court, or amicus, briefs in those cases, according to research from Accountable.US, a progressive organization …
“… The American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank where Crow sits on the board of trustees, has filed three briefs in cases that have come before Thomas. In 2003, the Club for Growth, a political group founded by free-market financial executives, joined a brief challenging the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law. At the time, Crow was on the group’s ‘founders committee.’
“Crow’s business interests also came directly before the court in 2005 when the justices declined to hear an appeal in a lawsuit alleging that Crow’s company had improperly used building designs made by an architectural firm, according to Bloomberg. The briefs filed by the National Multifamily Housing Council show how Crow’s interests in reducing government regulation of the real estate industry came before the court in an indirect manner. The council declined to comment on this story. Crow Holdings did not respond to a request for comment.” (Emphasis added.)
So much for the grifting aspect of the Clarence Thomas case. Now for the hypocrisy. “Created Equal” is the title of the documentary that tells the Clarence Thomas tale. In it he waxes poetic about his humble beginnings and still humble tastes: “I prefer the RV Parks. I prefer the Walmart parking lots to the beaches and things like that. There’s something normal to me about that. I come from regular stock and I prefer that. I prefer being around them.” I’m guessing those who’ll find themselves at the RV parks this summer and the Walmart parking lots wouldn’t mind trading places for a seat on that private jet and island-hopping on that superyacht around that volcanic archipelago while exchanging their tuna noodle casserole for dinner made by Harlan’s private chef.
Well, if all this isn’t enough to demand that Supreme Court justices be held to the same ethical standards as other governmental appointees, consider that Clarence Thomas isn’t the only justice pushing the ethical envelope.
On April 25, 2023 Politico turned the spotlight on Justice Neil Gorsuch:
“For nearly two years beginning in 2015, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch sought a buyer for a 40-acre tract of property he co-owned in rural Granby, Colo.
“Nine days after he was confirmed by the Senate for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court, the then-circuit court judge got one: The chief executive of Greenberg Traurig, one of the nation’s biggest law firms with a robust practice before the high court. Gorsuch owned the property with two other individuals.
“On April 16 of 2017, Greenberg’s Brian Duffy put under contract the 3,000-square foot log home on the Colorado River and nestled in the mountains northwest of Denver, according to real estate records.
“He and his wife closed on the house a month later, paying $1.825 million, according to a deed in the county’s record system. Gorsuch, who held a 20 percent stake, reported making between $250,001 and $500,000 from the sale on his federal disclosure forms.
“Gorsuch did not disclose the identity of the purchaser. That box was left blank …
“Since then, Greenberg Traurig has been involved in at least 22 cases before or presented to the court, according to a POLITICO review of the court’s docket.
“They include cases in which Greenberg either filed amicus briefs or represented parties. In the 12 cases where Gorsuch’s opinion is recorded, he sided with Greenberg Traurig clients eight times and against them four times.
“In addition, a Denver-based lawyer for Greenberg represented North Dakota in what became one of the more highly publicized rulings in recent years, a multistate suit which reversed former President Barack Obama’s plan to fight climate change through the Clean Air Act.
“Gorsuch joined the court’s other five conservative judges in agreeing with the plaintiffs — including Greenberg’s client — that the Environmental Protection Agency had overstepped its authority by regulating carbon emissions from power plants in the decision that makes it more difficult for the executive branch to regulate emissions without express authorization from Congress.” (Emphasis added.)
Is it possible that Chief Justice John Roberts’ reluctance to wade in on the issue of ethical violations has something to do with his wife’s multi-million-dollar income over the years as a head-hunter placing attorneys at some of the most powerful and prestigious law firms in the nation? On January 31, 2023, The New York Times reported:
“After Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined the Supreme Court, his wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, gave up her career as a law firm partner to become a high-end legal recruiter …
“Now, a former colleague of Mrs. Roberts has raised concerns that her recruiting work poses potential ethics issues for the chief justice. Seeking an inquiry, the ex-colleague has provided records to the Justice Department and Congress indicating Mrs. Roberts has been paid millions of dollars in commissions for placing lawyers at firms — some of which have business before the Supreme Court, according to a letter obtained by The New York Times.
“In his letter last month, Kendal Price, a 66-year-old Boston lawyer, argued that the justices should be required to disclose more information about their spouses’ work. He did not cite specific Supreme Court decisions, but said he was worried that a financial relationship with law firms arguing before the court could affect justices’ impartiality or at least give the appearance of doing so …
“In a statement, a spokeswoman for the Supreme Court, Patricia McCabe, said that all the justices were ‘attentive to ethical constraints’ and complied with financial disclosure laws. The chief justice and his wife had also consulted the code of conduct for federal judges, Ms. McCabe said, including a 2009 advisory opinion that a judge ‘need not recuse merely because’ his or her spouse had worked as a recruiter for a law firm with issues before the court.’
“Mrs. Roberts previously said that she handled conflicts on a case-by-case basis, avoiding matters with any connection to her husband’s job and refraining from working with lawyers who had active Supreme Court cases.”
It is profoundly sad that the desire to ensure that our Supreme Court justices live up to their obligations to “administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich …” has become yet one more issue mired in predictable, partisan politics. Transparency and a concern for ethics, a commitment to avoid even the appearance of favoritism, has absolutely nothing to do with political affiliation or even allegiance to one judicial theory over another. The institution dedicated to ensuring that our laws conform to the principles of equal rights and equal protection must itself be bound by these considerations.

It seems clear that Republicans aren’t concerned with the actions of Justice Thomas, Justice Gorsuch, and the Chief Justice. And it seems clear that Chief Justice Roberts and the other justices have little desire to rigorously police themselves. So now more than ever, we need Congress to step in, investigate, and then regulate any improper behavior. In their May 9, 2023 letter to Harlan Crow, Senator Durbin and the Judiciary Committee are doing just that:
“U.S. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, led all Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats in sending letters to Mr. Crow and the holding companies that own his private jet, private yacht, and Topridge Camp seeking to identify the full extent of Mr. Crow’s and the corporations’ gifts to Justice Thomas … [and discover] what other individuals were able to gain special access to Justice Thomas and any other Justices via the travel and lodging provided, and whether those individuals had interests before the Supreme Court.”

The letter continues:
- “An itemized list of all transportation or lodging provided by you, or any entity you own or control or for which you have served as a partner, director, or officer, to a Justice of the Supreme Court or a member of the Justice’s family, including the name of the Justice, the date the transportation was provided, the mode of transportation provided, the itinerary traveled, any lodging provided, and the approximate dollar value of the transportation or lodging.
- “An itemized list of the occasions on which any property or facility owned by any entity you own or control or for which you have served as a partner, director, or officer, provided lodging to a Justice of the Supreme Court or a member of the Justice’s family, including the name of the relevant Justice, the location of the lodging, the date the lodging was provided, and the approximate dollar value of the lodging.
- “An itemized list of all occasions when entrance to any private, members-only club was provided by you, or entities you own or control or for which you have served as a partner, director, or officer, to any Justice of the Supreme Court or a member of the Justice’s family, including the name of the Justice, the dates of those visits, and the full names of any other guests who were also provided entrance by you, or entities you own or control or for which you have served as a partner, director, or officer.”
The Committee also sent a letter to the corporate entity that own the Topridge Camp, requesting information other guests who might have stayed there during the times when Justice Thomas was there. There was also a letter “regarding the other passengers who traveled with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on trips Rochelle Marine Ltd. provided on its private yacht, the Michaela Rose, over the past two decades.” And finally a letter requesting “information regarding the other passengers who traveled with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on trips HRZNAR LLC provided on its private jet over the past two decades.”
As Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote in 1947 in United States v. United Mine Workers (1947): “The historic phrase ‘a government of laws, and not of men,’ epitomized the distinguishing character of our political society …
“… The conception of a government by laws dominated the thoughts of those who founded this Nation and designed its Constitution, although they knew as well as the belittlers of the conception that laws have to be made, interpreted and enforced by men. To that end, they set apart a body of men, who were to be the depositories of law, who by their disciplined training and character and by withdrawal from the usual temptations of private interest may reasonably be expected to be ‘as free, impartial, and independent as the lot of humanity will admit.’ So strongly were the framers of the Constitution bent on securing a reign of law that they endowed the judicial office with extraordinary safeguards and prestige. No one, no matter how exalted his public office or how righteous his private motive, can be judge in his own case.” (Emphasis added.)
There is now good reason to wonder whether several members of the Supreme Court have the requisite character to serve on the highest court of the land, to question whether they have sufficiently withdrawn from the temptations of private interest. Clarence Thomas has allowed his mother’s home, the employment of his wife, the education of his grandnephew, and his luxurious vacations to be paid for by a remarkably wealthy and powerful real estate developer. Justice Gorsuch has allowed his property to be purchased by yet another powerful man whose clients have interests before the Court. And the Chief Justice himself, the man we rely upon to guide the other justices, has profited mightily from his wife’s work populating the most powerful law firms in America, providing the lawyers most likely to be arguing before his court.
Of course, when it comes to Congressional oversight, there’s always a question of motivation. So many of them are comfortable with the quid pro quo reality of campaign contributions. And in this case, Harlan Crow has already provided himself with some protection. As Caitlin Oprysko along with Berkshire-raised Daniel Lippman reported for Politico:
“Sitting members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have raked in more than $400,000 from Republican megadonor and businessman Harlan Crow over their congressional careers, according to campaign finance reports … donating to PACs associated with every Republican on the panel save for Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.).
“The vast majority has gone to Crow’s home state senator John Cornyn, whose various committees received $290,000 from Crow. Of that amount, $42,600 went to Cornyn’s primary campaign account or leadership PAC directly, with the rest going to fellow Senate Republicans or the conference’s campaign arm.
“The next largest beneficiaries on the committee of Crow’s political contributions have been Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas). Cotton’s campaign committee and leadership PAC have accepted $23,700 from Crow over the years, while Cruz’s Senate and presidential campaigns and leadership PAC have brought in $23,500 from Crow.
“Crow has given $23,300 to various PACs affiliated with Grassley, the panel’s former top Republican. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) has raised $19,500 from Crow, while a joint fundraising committee affiliated with current ranking member Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) received $17,800 from Crow and Graham’s campaign committee received $2,800 from the billionaire.”
For the moment, at least, it appears that some members of the Supreme Court imagine themselves above the law. And they have benefitted mightily by evading the laws they repeatedly insist should govern the rest of us. And it seems there’s a good chance they’ll continue to get away with it.