Justice Clarence Thomas refrained from releasing his financial disclosure forms on Wednesday, in contrast to his Supreme Court colleagues who complied with the federal mandate.
This action has generated further criticism regarding his failure to disclose extensive trips and a private real estate transaction involving a prominent GOP donor.
According to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Thomas, along with Justice Samuel Alito, requested an extension, thereby delaying the potential release of information concerning Thomas’ association with the donor, Texas real estate magnate Harlan Crow.
The Supreme Court has faced increased scrutiny this year due to concerns over the justices’ commitment to transparency and ethical guidelines.
The electronic posting of the financial reports on Wednesday is noteworthy as it marks the first time they are publicly accessible.
Earlier this spring, public attention intensified regarding Thomas following a ProPublica report revealing extravagant travel, including private jet and yacht rides.
At the time, Thomas justified his non-disclosure of the gifts, claiming he was advised that they did not require reporting under the existing rules.
In an attempt to address concerns, the Judicial Conference issued updated guidelines aimed at closing loopholes in the category of “personal hospitality.” These guidelines clarified that travel on private jets or yachts is not exempt from reporting.
Subsequently, Thomas issued a statement acknowledging his failure to disclose the travel and attributing it to his understanding at the time. He referred to Crow and his wife as “dearest friends” and expressed his commitment to following the newly clarified rules in the future. However, it remains unclear when Thomas will file amendments to reflect the personal real estate transaction between him, his family members, and Crow, who previously acquired the residence where Thomas’ mother currently resides.
In April, all nine justices released a statement aimed at providing “clarity” regarding the high court’s ethics practices. However, this gesture did little to assuage the concerns of critics.
Chief Justice John Roberts, while underscoring the Supreme Court’s dedication to upholding the “highest standards of conduct,” declined an invitation to address ethics concerns before Congress, citing concerns about the separation of powers.
