By John Kruzel
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas took at least three additional trips financed by billionaire benefactor Harlan Corvo that the conservative justice did not disclose, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Thursday.
Crow, a Texas businessman and Republican donor, revealed details about the judge’s travel between 2017 and 2021 in response to a Judiciary Committee vote last November to authorize subpoenas on Crow and another influential conservative, according to Sen. Dick Durbin.
“The Senate Judiciary Committee’s ongoing investigation into the Supreme Court’s ethical crisis is producing new information – like what we revealed (Thursday) – and makes clear that the highest court needs an enforceable code of conduct, because its members continue to choose not to meet the moment,” Durbin said.
A Supreme Court spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment, nor did Crow’s attorney.
Thomas has previously been criticized for not disclosing Crow’s gifts. More recently, Thomas revised his 2019 financial disclosure form on June 7 to acknowledge that Crow paid for his “food and lodging” at a Bali hotel and a California club.
But Thomas’ recent filing did not reveal that Crow paid for his private jet travel related to trips to Bali and California, and an eight-day yacht excursion in Indonesia, omissions that were revealed Thursday in a redacted document which Durbin’s office said contained travel itineraries where Crow provided transportation to justice.
The document shows private jet travel in May 2017 between St. Louis, Montana and Dallas; private jet travel in March 2019 between Washington and Savannah, Georgia; and private jet travel in June 2021 between Washington and San Jose, California.
Under pressure from criticism about ethics, judges adopted their first code of conduct last November.
Critics and some congressional Democrats have asserted that the code does not go far enough to promote transparency, continuing to leave decisions to dismiss cases to judges themselves and providing no enforcement mechanism.
(Reporting by John Kruzel; Editing by Will Dunham)
