Apr 17, 2024 By Kent James 5 min read

The reputation of the U.S. Supreme Court has been damaged recently by conflicts of interest and accusations of corruption, mostly centered around Justice Clarence Thomas.

The investigative news outlet ProPublica recently carried a series in which it documented how wealthy Republican donors had funded Thomas’ opulent lifestyle. It’s ironic, because the associate justice’s life story is truly impressive. He ascended from an impoverished background in the South to the Supreme Court. In a documentary about his life, funded by one of those wealthy conservative benefactors, Harlan Crow, Thomas tries to create a “man of the people” persona. Thomas says trips to Europe are fine, but “I prefer the RV parks. I prefer the Walmart parking lots to the beaches and things like that. There’s something normal to me about it….I come from regular stock, and I prefer that — I prefer being around that.”

As the Oscar-winning movie “Nomadland” showed, RV parks can be an affordable place to stay, but the top-of-the-line motorhome Thomas owns is worth more than the houses of most people who shop at Walmart. And as the ProPublica series shows, Thomas certainly doesn’t spend most of his vacations in Walmart parking lots communing with the common folk. No doubt Thomas is familiar with how the poor live, but he has come a long way from his hometown of Pin Point, Ga.

Thomas’ benefactors began lavishing him with gifts in 2000, when he talked about leaving the Supreme Court because he could not live the lifestyle he wanted on the salary of an associate justice, which was $173,600 at the time and is about $320,000 in today’s dollars. The coin of the realm for the Supreme Court is prestige and the power to shape society, not luxury. If Thomas wants to live like the 1%, he should find a job that supports that goal. Instead, he remains on the Supreme Court while allowing wealthy, politically invested “friends” to provide him with the lifestyle he craves.

While there is a “personal hospitality” exception to allow justices to be hosted by friends, having someone over for dinner is a little different than giving them an all-expense paid superyacht excursion in the South Pacific, as well as passage on a private jet to get there. And these benefactors were not Thomas’ friends prior to his appointment to the court, making their “friendship” a little convenient.

Is it just coincidence that all of the people who give Thomas gifts seem to share his political views?

In addition to the private jets and vacations, Thomas’ backers purchased his mother’s house and fixed it up, letting her live there rent-free; paid private school tuition for the grandnephew he was raising as a son; and lent him money to buy the previously mentioned motorhome, and then forgave most of the loan.

Jeremy Fogel, a federal judge who served on a judicial committee that reviews financial contributions to judges, called what Thomas received “unprecedented.” Ironically, the Supreme Court is exempt from the code of ethics that covers the lower courts, so the justices get to decide on their own if they’ve crossed ethical lines, which isn’t the best way to ensure accountability. While ethics may be subjective, Thomas did break the law when he failed to declare most of the gifts he received. He claimed he got “bad advice” and didn’t know he was breaking the law, excuses that don’t usually carry much weight with the law-and-order crowd that supports him.

While no one has documented “quid pro quo” corruption at the Supreme Court, where someone pays a justice to vote a particular way, people with interests before the court paying for the vacations of justices is not OK. Studies on the impact of drug companies’ gifts to doctors, such as pens, mugs and dinners, show that doctors who receive even small gifts are more likely to use that company’s drugs. We are programmed to think more highly of people who help us, and to reciprocate when we can. That’s human nature, and a crucial characteristic of polite society. That’s why it’s important to set up judicial systems that don’t require saintly behavior to be fair.

Corruption is endemic in failed states – it was an important component of our failures in Afghanistan – where bribes act as a tax that only benefits the corrupt. One of the benefits of living in the United States is that corruption is minimal, which lets society function more efficiently. The Supreme Court should not be tainted by even a hint of corruption.

In addition to financial corruption, Thomas faces numerous conflicts of interest because of the political activism of his wife, Ginni Thomas. Judges on other federal courts are required to recuse themselves if there is even an appearance of a conflict of interest when hearing a case. Ginni Thomas worked hard to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and was affiliated with January 6 activists and “Stop the Steal” organizers. Clarence Thomas was the only Supreme Court justice to oppose allowing the House committee investigating the events of Jan. 6, 2021, access to Trump administration records on the insurrection, records which might provide evidence of his wife’s involvement.

In a polarized environment, where close decisions of the Supreme Court can be decided by one vote, no doubt justices are hesitant to recuse themselves because they fear doing so will allow their ideological opponents on the court to win. Theoretically, Congress could impeach and remove Thomas from the Supreme Court, but Republicans would certainly not support removing Thomas and allowing President Biden to name his replacement, so that’s not going to happen. But if the Supreme Court wants to restore its reputation as an unbiased interpreter of the law, it needs to do better; rigorous ethical standards with enforcement mechanisms and clear guidelines for when a justice should recuse should be the minimum.

Kent James is a member of East Washington’s borough council.