Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s ethics and morals have been brought into question after it was revealed that billionaires (such as real estate developer Harlan Crow) have paid for Thomas and his family to go on dozens of luxurious vacations. According to public records, since 1991 Thomas has had 26 private jet flights paid for, eight helicopter rides, more than 12 VIP passes gifted to sports events, luxury resort trips to Jamaica and Florida, tuition payments as well as the purchase of multiple properties of his and his families, all by different billionaires. Prior to Thomas reporting August 31 three flights he took aboard Crow’s private jet during 2022, Thomas did not report any other gifts he received.
The concern of these gifts coming to light is the fact that by law Supreme Court Justices are required to report all gifts they receive that are over $415. While technically there is no official ethics code for the high court, the federal law does require it. The last gift Thomas reported prior to August 31 was in 1999, over 24 years ago.
Officials are concerned that these billionaires and their gifts have influence on Supreme Court rulings. David L. Sokol, one of the billionaires accused of influencing Thomas’s rulings, made a comment to ProPublica.
“We have never once discussed any pending court matter,” Sokol said. “Our conversations have always revolved around helping young people, sports and family matters.”
Experts have called attention to the possible connection between the gifts Thomas receives and influence they have in cases like the New York City rent control case. New York has one of the oldest rent control and stabilization laws in the country making it difficult for landlords to increase rent on buildings built before 1974. The rent control laws protect tenants from having their rent raised each year and gives them the right to renew their leases.
Thomas’s relationship with Harlan Crow, a large real estate developer, has come up as a concern for Ethics Watchdogs during this case. The outcome of this case can determine whether or not rent control will be protected across the nation.
