• • May 2017 private jet travel from St. Louis, MO, to Kalispell, MT, and return flight to Dallas, TX;
  • March 2019 private jet travel from Washington, DC, to Savannah, GA, and back; and
  • June 2021 private jet travel from Washington, DC, to San Jose, CA, and back.

Recent revelations have highlighted significant ethical concerns surrounding Justice Clarence Thomas, particularly regarding undisclosed gifts and luxury travel. Documents have surfaced detailing private jet travel and an extravagant eight-day yacht excursion associated with Thomas’s July 2019 trip to Indonesia, as well as additional private jet travel related to a trip to Santa Rosa, California, during the same month. Alarmingly, Thomas failed to disclose these trips in his amendment to his 2019 financial disclosure report, raising questions about the accuracy and completeness of the information he chooses to report.

Further complicating matters, the documents from donor Harlan Crow indicate discrepancies in the reported dates for the July 2019 Indonesia trip, casting further doubt on the veracity of Justice Thomas's disclosures. Investigative reporting has also uncovered that Thomas has accepted nearly $4.2 million in gifts over his two decades on the Supreme Court—an astonishing sum that is nearly ten times the total value of gifts received by his fellow justices during the same period.

Senator Dick Durbin, who has been vocal about the need for ethical reform within the Supreme Court, expressed his concerns, stating, “Nearly $4.2 million in gifts wasn’t enough for Justice Thomas, with at least three additional trips the Committee found that he has failed to disclose to date.” Durbin emphasized that the ongoing investigation by the Senate Judiciary Committee into the Supreme Court's ethical crisis is yielding critical information, underscoring the urgent need for an enforceable code of conduct for the nation’s highest court.

He highlighted the troubling reality that Chief Justice John Roberts has not acted on this issue despite the Court's declining approval ratings and a series of self-inflicted scandals. Durbin reaffirmed the Committee's commitment to push for the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act, which aims to bring necessary reforms to ensure accountability among justices.

Legally, it is worth noting that the financial disclosure statute (5 U.S.C. 13104(a)(2)(A)) stipulates that only “food, lodging, or entertainment received as personal hospitality of an individual” need not be reported, while gifts of transportation must be disclosed. Thomas's continued failure to report his luxury travel raises serious ethical questions and reinforces the calls for greater transparency and accountability within the Supreme Court. As these investigations continue, they not only shine a light on the conduct of Justice Thomas but also highlight a broader need for ethical standards that govern the behavior of Supreme Court justices.