Unreported Trips by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Senator Reveals

1. Overview

Date: June 13, 2023
Source: Reuters
Location: Washington, D.C.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas took at least three additional trips funded by billionaire benefactor Harlan Crow, which he failed to disclose. This revelation was made by Senator Dick Durbin, the Democratic chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

2. Details of Unreported Trips (2017-2021)

2.1 Private Jet Travel

#YearRoutePurpose
12017St. Louis, Montana → DallasNot Disclosed
22019Washington → Savannah, GeorgiaNot Disclosed
32021Washington → San Jose, CaliforniaNot Disclosed

Senator’s Statement: Senator Durbin disclosed these details after a Judiciary Committee vote last November authorized subpoenas to Harlan Crow and Leonard Leo, another influential conservative figure.

3. Specific Trips and Omissions

  • Bali and California (2019): Justice Thomas acknowledged that Crow paid for his “food and lodging” but did not disclose travel by private jet.
  • Indonesia (Eight-day Excursion): Private jet travel and yacht expenses were omitted.

4. Committee Investigation

Crow, a Texas businessman and Republican donor, agreed to provide information dating back seven years in exchange for the committee ending its probe into him. Despite concerns about the inquiry’s legality, Crow engaged in negotiations to resolve the matter.

Crow’s Statement: “Mr. Crow engaged in good faith negotiations with the committee from the beginning to resolve the matter,” said Michael Zona, Crow’s spokesperson.

5. Supreme Court’s Response

The Supreme Court did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Durbin’s Statement: “The Senate Judiciary Committee’s ongoing investigation into the Supreme Court’s ethical crisis is producing new information and makes it crystal clear that the highest court needs an enforceable code of conduct,” Durbin said.

6. Code of Conduct Adoption

Under pressure, the Supreme Court adopted its first code of conduct in November. Critics argue that it does not go far enough to promote transparency and leaves recusal decisions to the justices without enforcement mechanisms.

For more details, read the full article on Reuters .

Share this post with friends

See next post See next post
No one has commented on this post yet
Click here to comment

Comment according to the rules. Every comment is reviewed.

comment url