Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Friday formally reported a 2019 trip to Indonesia funded by GOP megadonor Harlan Crow, a vacation that has raised significant concerns about potential corruption and undue influence.
The trip to Bali became a focal point following an investigative report by ProPublica last year, which sparked widespread scrutiny and controversy over luxurious travel accepted by justices. Despite the revelations, Thomas had previously failed to disclose this trip in his annual financial reports.
In his latest annual financial disclosure, Thomas listed Harlan and Kathy Crow as the benefactors of the Bali trip in July 2019, covering “food and lodging.” However, Thomas did not assign a monetary value to the travel, further fueling suspicions.
Thomas also disclosed a separate trip funded by the Crows to a private club in Monte Rio, California, during the same month. These annual disclosures, mandated by law, are intended to provide transparency regarding the finances of justices and lower court judges. However, they have garnered increased attention due to a series of ethics scandals involving justices accepting private jet travel and luxury vacations.
Much of the criticism has centered on Thomas and fellow conservative Justice Samuel Alito. Thomas has faced backlash for multiple trips funded by Crow, while Alito was scrutinized for a luxury fishing trip on a conservative hedge fund manager’s private jet, both of which were not initially disclosed.
Alito, like in previous years, received a 90-day extension on his report. Last year, the judiciary announced stricter rules, closing loopholes that allowed justices to withhold disclosing certain trips by classifying them as “personal hospitality” from “close personal friends.”
The new rules require justices and judges to provide a “good faith estimate of the fair market value” of such travel if the exact value is not readily available. These latest disclosures, covering the 2023 calendar year, are the first since the Supreme Court adopted a code of conduct in response to the travel scandals. Although the code was unanimously adopted by all nine justices, it has been met with skepticism from ethics experts and some Democratic lawmakers due to its lack of an enforcement mechanism.
