How wealthy donors put Clarence Thomas in the lap of luxury

T hirty-eight luxury vacations. Twenty-six private flights. More than a dozen VIP passes to big-ticket sporting events. Resort stays in Florida and Jamaica. The list goes on. A fresh accounting of gifts and travel worth tens of thousands of dollars provided to US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas follows an avalanche of reporting about the lavish and largely undisclosed largesse he has received while serving on the nation’s highest court. ProPublica’s ongoing investigation has previously uncovered unreported gifts and luxury travel, undisclosed real-estate transactions involving family members, and potential conflicts of interest with potentially significant political impacts. The outlet’s latest reporting provides the fullest account yet of his gifts and travel, a far more expansive list than previously understood, and what ProPublica believes is a likely undercount. Some of the hospitality Justice Thomas received, including stays in personal homes of his benefactors, may not have required disclosures, but legal experts told the outlet that he likely violated the law by failing to disclose flights, yacht cruises, sporting event tickets and other gifts. The total value of the gifts and travel he has received since joining the bench in 1991 is likely in the millions, according to ProPublica. The report amounts to the largest and most-sweeping findings yet in the last two decades of reporting about questionable gifts and the relationships between conservative members of the nine-member panel with special interest groups and figures that have business at the court. Justice Thomas already faces mounting scrutiny from members of Congress and calls for his resignation or impeachment after ProPublica reported on the depth of his relationship billionaire Republican donor Harlan Crow , who provided him with extravagant vacations , paid for a family member’s tuition , and entered an unusual real estate deal surrounding his mother’s home. The justice has defended his relationship with Mr Crow in a statement claiming that, ‘as friends do,’ he and his wife Virginia ‘Ginni’ Thomas have joined Mr Crow ‘on a number of family trips during the more than quarter century we have known them’. ProPublica’s latest investigation uncovers his links to three other billionaires who have also supported GOP causes. They include David Sokol of Berkshire Hathaway, the late H Wayne Huizenga, and former oil magnate Paul ‘Tony’ Novelly. While none of the benefactors appear to have had any business in front of the court, their donations to right-wing political causes align with Justice Thomas’s far-right jurisprudence and a coalition of right-wing special interest groups with enormous influence in the federal judiciary. His friendships with those benefactors also appear to have started after he joined the court. The justice’s shares ties to the three men named in the latest investigation through the Horatio Alger Association; Justice Thomas’ involvement in the organisation was reported by The New York Times report last month. Justice Thomas and Mr Novelly did not respond to ProPublica’s request for comment; The Independent has requested comment from the Supreme Court following the latest findings. ‘We have never once discussed any pending court matter,’ Mr Sokol said in a statement to ProPublica. ‘Our conversations have always revolved around helping young people, sports, and family matters.’ Following reporting that Mr Sokol hosted the Thomas family ‘virtually every summer’ for a decade, including the use of private jet travel, Mr Sokol said: ‘I believe that given security concerns all of the Supreme Court justices should either fly privately or on governmental aircraft.’ Democratic members of Congress have pointed to the avalanche of reporting over the last several months to demand that the nation’s highest court – the only arm of the federal judiciary that is not bound by a code of ethics – should be held accountable by a clear and enforceable set of standards. Several proposals – largely rejected by congressional Republicans – would force the Supreme Court to create a binding code of conduct, appoint an ethics officer to oversee compliance, or establish an ethics policy as strict as one for members of Congress.