Why the Clarence Thomas Timeline of Gifts Isn’t Pretty

Pay Dirt is a weekly foray into the pigpen of political funding. Subscribe here to get it in your inbox every Thursday.

It’s a story that’s continued to shake faith in the Supreme Court: Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife took lavish gifts from conservative bigwigs and Thomas never disclosed them.

But the heart of the story isn’t really that Thomas failed to properly fill out some forms; the crucial question is whether these gifts ever influenced Thomas’ decisions.

While the conservative Supreme Court justice’s failure to disclose these gifts is a scandal in its own right, it’d be a much more troubling situation if someone could draw a line between the gifts Thomas received and some of the decisions he’s made on the bench. And while that line is difficult to draw without Thomas himself admitting that certain gifts affected his jurisprudence—fat chance—the timeline connecting some of Thomas’ most controversial decisions with these newly reported gifts is damning enough for some good government experts to say Thomas is in an “untenable” position.

First, there are the gifts. Thomas’ primary benefactor was GOP megadonor—and billionaire—Harlan Crow. Crow has bankrolled numerous Republican candidates. He curiously collects Nazi memorabilia. He reportedly has a garden full of statues of dictators. And he funded opportunities for Thomas’ family—multiple vacations, years of pricey private tuition for someone Thomas considers a son—and he bought real estate from the Thomas family.

But Crow isn’t the only Republican giving generously to the Thomas household. Conservative judicial activist Leonard Leo also funneled $80,000—in a small world way, through Kellyanne Conway—to Thomas’ wife, Ginni Thomas.

Both Crow and Leo have had considerable business before the Supreme Court. And a close examination of some of these decisions—all decided on 5-4 votes, where Thomas’ decision was critical—are now coming into sharper focus.

In the beginning…

Thomas has served on the court since 1991, but the groundbreaking reports from ProPublica peg the first gifts he ever received from Crow around 2008, when the billionaire paid tuition for Thomas’ grandnephew to attend an elite boarding school.

The Supreme Court justice has said he raised his grandnephew like a son—taking legal custody of him when the boy was only 6. For many in D.C.’s highest echelons of government, sending your kid to a cushy private school is customary. Thomas chose Hidden Lake Academy, which was in Georgia. At some point thereafter, Thomas’ grandnephew switched to a different boarding school called Randolph-Macon Academy.

Crow footed the bill for both. The exact total in tuition he paid over the years is unknown. But if he paid for all four years, it’d be upwards of $150,000, according to ProPublica.

That same period of time was a busy one on the Supreme Court.

Most notably, the court delivered a 5-4 landmark ruling on Citizens United v. the Federal Elections Commission, deciding that corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money supporting political candidates. The case was first argued in 2009 and later decided in 2010.

While Citizens United is obviously a lot larger than one person or family—it literally changed how campaigns are run and will affect money in politics for the rest of time—one family that benefited from the ruling was Crow’s. His company was able to funnel unlimited amounts of cash into conservative candidates. And it did.

In the 2022 cycle alone, Crow Holdings contributed $2,655,646 primarily toward Republican candidates and PACs, according to Open Secrets.

Then came Ginni and Leo

Come June 2011 through June 2012, conservative judicial activist Leonard Leo directed large amounts of money to Ginni Thomas, which he funneled to the justice’s wife via Kellyanne Conway. Leo claimed the money was for consulting work, but insisted Ginni Thomas’ name be left off paperwork. Around that same time, Leo’s firm—then named the Judicial Education Project—was involved in the Shelby County v. Holder voting-rights case that was seeking review by the Supreme Court.

And wouldn’t you know it, the Supreme Court agreed to review Shelby County in November 2012.

And in June 2013, in another 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court decided that certain parts of the Voting Rights Act were unconstitutional. That aligned with the conservative view—and with the Judicial Education Project.

The later years

Thomas continued to be a deciding vote in a number of high-profile decisions for the court. In 2014, he ruled with the 5-4 majority in the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby decision. That decision allowed employers to forgo employee benefits that conflict with the employer’s religious beliefs (e.g. birth control). That ruling comports with Crow’s—and Leo’s—general beliefs on abortion and birth control.

Come 2015, by miraculous coincidence, Crow’s company bought multiple properties owned by Thomas, including the house his mother lived in. Crow put thousands into improving the property. Thomas didn’t disclose the purchases.

Then came the June 2019 ruling in Rucho v. Common that said there is no constitutional precedent for blocking partisan gerrymandering. That case was also decided 5-4—with Thomas in the majority.

And in June 2019, Thomas was spoiled with a lavish Indonesian vacation, using Crow’s jet and yacht.

Republicans have pushed back on criticism of Thomas’ relationship with Crow, insisting the justice is allowed to have friends. But it’s not that simple.

“The justice is absolutely allowed to have friends and to vacation with friends and to travel with friends. And even to receive gifts from friends as long as they are disclosed,” Kedric Payne, the senior director of ethics at the Campaign Legal Center, told The Daily Beast.

“It’s when it appears that gifts are hidden, that you start to build distrust with the public, and then you have a bigger problem,” Payne said.

Here’s the thing

Thomas isn’t broke. Supreme Court justices make more than a quarter-million a year. And Ginni Thomas does have a successful—though questionable—career in Republican politics. But things like grand Indonesian getaways on chartered yachts would be a stretch for most civil servants—even those with lofty paychecks.

That’s something noted billionaires like Crow can cash in on. And it’s partially why Supreme Court justices are required to report gifts—and are generally expected to recuse themselves from cases in which they have conflicts of interest.

“Given the extent of these gifts and payments and benefits, the real estate transactions, you cannot give him the benefit of the doubt that he has the requisite independence to be able to preside in these cases,” said Virginia Canter, chief ethics counsel for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

“And he didn’t recuse himself when I think his impartiality was in question. And this, when you step back, when you look at all these facts and circumstances, I mean, we certainly can’t expect it going forward,” Canter added.

Payne noted that the ethics law is based on “the fact that the appearance of a conflict of interest is just as bad as an actual conflict.”

“So even if it’s not possible to prove that any gift influenced a decision, the simple fact that the public may perceive that the gifts were influential is the problem,” Payne continued.

CREW has called on Thomas to step down—something that, for now, seems unlikely. But Canter predicts something will happen.

“He’s put himself and the court in an untenable position. And I think that there will be consequences one way or the other,” she said.