Judge Clarence Thomas on Friday admitted extra luxury travel from a conservative billionaire, redacting an earlier financial disclosure to reflect trips to an Indonesian island and a secret all-male club in the northern California redwoods.
The trips, taken in 2019, were previously published by ProPublica, but this is the first time Judge Thomas has included them in his financial disclosures.
Other Supreme Court judges described their gifts, travel and money earned through books and teaching. Judge Ketanji Brown announced that Jackson received four concert tickets worth about $3,700 from Beyoncé and $10,000 worth of artwork for her rooms from Alabama artist and musician Lonnie Holley.
Financial disclosures, published annually, are one of the few public records of judges’ lives that provide selective details of their activities outside the court. A steady outcry about ties between some judges and wealthy donors has intensified interest in the reports, especially after revelations that Justice Thomas accepted lavish trips and gifts from billionaire friends for decades.
Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. was granted an extension this year, according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, which oversees the federal judiciary and Handles financial records. It fits his routine. He delayed filing his disclosure for more than a decade, according to Fix the Court, an advocacy group critical of the court’s lack of transparency.
Last year, Justice Thomas and Justice Samuel A. Both Alito Jr. requested and received extensions to file their disclosure forms. Neither gave a reason for asking for the delay.
When his form was released to the public, Judge Thomas added an unusual addition, a statement defending his acceptance of gifts from Harlan Crowe, a Texas real estate magnate and donor to conservative causes. The report said he “carelessly omitted” information on earlier forms, which also sought to justify his decision to fly on private jets. He said there was Advised to avoid business trips After the draft opinion was leaked, Roe v. Wade.
The Supreme Court, under mounting pressure and intense public scrutiny, adopted its first code of conduct in November. Judges in lower federal courts have long been bound by a code, but the Supreme Court has never been subject to those requirements because of its special constitutional status.
The lack of an enforcement mechanism or process to handle ethical complaints has drawn criticism, as has the lack of specific controls on gifts, travel or real estate deals.
however, A nine-page code It warned that members of the Supreme Court should not engage in activities that “discredit the dignity of the profession”, interfere with a judge’s ability to perform official duties, “reflect negatively on the impartiality of justice” or “result in frequent disqualification”.
