Reports that Texas billionaire Harlan Crow paid boarding school tuition for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ great-nephew are the straws that broke the camel’s back for me. It’s time for the Supreme Court of the United States to impose ethical accountability standards—yesterday.
Even if Justice Thomas’ decisions have never been directly influenced by his friend’s generosity, Supreme Court justices should be expected to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. And there can be no denying that the optics of this situation are…bad.
Keep in mind that this latest revelation comes on the heels of reports that Thomas enjoyed lavish vacations on Crow’s dime and that Crow purchased the home of Thomas’ mother (and allows her to live there rent-free).
ADVERTISEMENT
Until now, I have remained silent regarding Thomas’ relationship with Crow. I chose to do this for several reasons, some of which I now regret.
First, Thomas’ court decisions have been consistent with his judicial philosophy—which is to say that he seems hard to influence, much less bribe.
My tendency to agree with Thomas’ philosophy probably didn’t hurt, either. But then I imagined a theoretical scenario where left-wing billionaire George Soros was paying for Biden-appointed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s child to attend an extremely expensive school, and it became clear that this situation was completely inappropriate.
Second, some of the media’s criticism of Crow—such as suggesting that his collection of historical artifacts made him a fan of Hitler—struck me as both unfair and outlandish. There’s also the fact that, rather than being some MAGA booster, Crow seems to be (like yours truly) a Never Trump conservative. This is what, in the biz, we call similarity bias.
Third, it strikes me as convenient that (after using the SCOTUS to impose progressive cultural values for decades) the left has suddenly discovered that the Supreme Court has systemic problems and is in need of reform.
Regardless of their motives, it is now clear that reforms are needed.
Indeed, these conflicts of interest are not unique to Thomas or Republican appointees. For example, according to the conservative Daily Wire, liberal Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotamayor received $3.6 million from Penguin Random House, yet did not recuse herself from copyright cases that involved the publisher.
And lastly, although previous revelations about Thomas and Crow struck me as highly unusual, imprudent, and unwise—they did not violate any ethical code of conduct.
Of course, this is only because the Supreme Court sets its own rules—which means it’s incumbent upon the institution to police itself, lest it lose any remaining legitimacy.
This task of self-policing is vital. And it has been on my mind a lot, lately.
My forthcoming book, Filthy Rich Politicians, makes the case that when our public servants use their perch to feather their nests, it fosters the sense that the game is rigged. This, I argue, is one of the many reasons that trust in politicians continues to decline (and it’s the reason Congress must pass reforms, including banning congressional stock trading).
If our elected officials (whom we could, at least theoretically, fire) are shedding credibility by wetting their beaks, then it must be doubly true of unelected judges with a lifetime seat.
It’s not like these institutions have credibility to burn. A 2022 Gallup survey showed that trust in the Supreme Court was at a historic low of 25 percent. That was down 11 percentage points from the previous year, no doubt owing to the overturning of Roe v. Wade. In the wake of these latest revelations regarding Justice Thomas, it may sink even lower.
Those of us who care about conserving the great American experiment must realize the public’s sense that our government’s officials are cashing in on their jobs undermines trust in the institutions they represent, not to mention liberal democracy, writ large.
The Supreme Court is not subject to congressional or executive oversight for good reason. It is vital that we preserve a separation of powers. But if we the people cannot demand that SCOTUS implement some reform or accountability, then the one unelected branch of government is beyond oversight.
As is the case in almost every institution these days, what is lacking is an adult to step in and provide leadership. Chief Justice John Roberts supposedly sees his mission in life to preserve the legitimacy of the court.
If Roberts really cares about preserving the credibility of this institution, he should push for serious, self-imposed reforms that would ban judges from accepting lavish gifts, regardless of whether there is direct quid pro quo.
This distinction is important. Crow has never had any business before the court, but it’s impossible to know what causes that he has financed have made their way before the court.
Again, a thought experiment is helpful. We recently endured a national conversation regarding whether George Soros was a donor to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg—who levied the first indictment of a former president. The upshot seems to be that he indirectly is, via a circuitous route. This is somewhat analogous to concerns about Crow and Thomas—legitimate concerns that threaten to undermine trust in the court.
And yet, all nine Supreme Court Justices signed a statement insisting that the current rules regarding gifts, financial disclosures, and travel are just fine. In other words, there’s no need for an official ethics code.
The court might not agree on anything else, but they are unanimous when it comes to preserving their ability to take money from billionaires. In regards to preserving the dwindling reputation of the high court, however, their only response seems to be: Don’t just do something, stand there!
