It’s typically understood by most Americans that our political system is infected with financial interests. Whether it’s a mayor, a senator or even a president, it’s not hard to develop an inkling that some of their political decisions have roots in privately held interests. That being said, the Supreme Court and its justices have managed to evade this perception to a certain extent. That finally might be changing.
A bombshell report released by ProPublica disclosed that Clarence Thomas, one of the most conservative justices on the Supreme Court, has been accepting luxurious gifts from a Republican billionaire in the form of vacations and private transportation. To top it all off, he’s been doing so for over two decades.
The gifts are from Harlan Crow, a prominent billionaire and conservative mega-donor. Gifts have primarily come in the form of luxurious vacations, with the most egregious example being a trip to Indonesia in 2019. The usage of Crow’s private plane and yacht added up to $500,000, well out of reach for a nine-day vacation on Clarence’s public service salary of $235,000.
There are two particularly problematic issues that have arisen out of Clarence Thomas’s acceptance of such gifts. The most important, from a legal perspective, is that he might have broken federal law.
The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 requires prominent public officials to disclose sources of income, gifts and reimbursements. This act pertains to members of Congress as well as the president. It also applies to federal judges, including Supreme Court justices.
The gifts that Thomas accepted, especially in regard to transportation, are the main issue from a legal perspective. According to law, he is obligated to publicly disclose this information, which he did not do.
In all seriousness, this is not a surprising failure on Thomas’ part. Just last year it was discovered that Thomas’ wife was directly involved in attempting to overturn the 2020 election. Thomas’ relationship with the law has been troubling, which complicates his legitimacy as a justice in a court that supposedly upholds the law to the highest degree.
Even more disturbing than Thomas’ toeing of legal limitations is the potential deterioration of norms that the Supreme Court has been operating with for decades if not centuries. The independence of the judicial branch has been a staple of American democracy. If these gifts are affecting the nature of Thomas’ constitutional and statutory interpretation, this idea of independence might be in jeopardy.
Clarence Thomas has consistently remained a prominent figure in the world of conservative politics. His decision helped to overturn Roe v. Wade, and his decision in District of Columbia v. Heller impeded the ability of states to pass gun restriction laws. Yet the introduction of ProPublica’s report begs the question: did financial gifts influence someone of these landmark decisions?
The truth is that it is nearly impossible to answer such a question, but the fact that the question is being asked is troubling, to say the least. The majority of the population in the United States supports abortion rights as well as gun restrictions. The Supreme Court’s decisions on these issues have not reflected public opinion at large, and if financial reasons are a player in this reality, we should all be frustrated.
Thomas’s actions have already led to a public debate on a number of issues pertaining to his case. Some Congress members, like representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have already called for impeachment proceedings. This is unlikely to result in anything due to the levels of polarization within the legislative branch. An argument that has more substance to it is the call for the Supreme Court to develop a code of ethics.
The U.S. Supreme Court is the only legislative body that is not governed by a code of ethics. The formation of a code of ethics seems to be more receptive from a bipartisan perspective. That being said, attempts at this in the past have been unsuccessful due to disagreements about the content of the code of ethics.
All in all, Thomas’ actions over the past decades coupled with his lack of transparency have awakened Americans. Even the Supreme Court is not safe from moneyed interests. More rules and regulations must be put in place, which is particularly difficult for an institution that has managed to police itself since its formation.
In a country where the Supreme Court has an increasing role in the nature of our legislation, more effort must be undertaken to protect their decision-making process from outside influence. Clarence Thomas is not the only example of this threat, and there is nothing in place to prevent future justices from presenting the public with more heinous examples.
As citizens, we are the ones supposed to hold those who represent us accountable. As justices become increasingly political in nature, there is no reason why the same should not apply to them. More checks are required, and participation on behalf of the public at large is the only way in which Congress can conjure up the bipartisan motivation to put those checks in place.
