Two Justices, Millions in Gifts, Zero Consequences
In December 2024, after 20 months of investigation, the Senate Judiciary Committee released a devastating 95-page report documenting what it called an “ethical crisis at the Supreme Court.”
The findings were damning: Justice Clarence Thomas “accepted lavish gifts from billionaires with business before the court for almost his entire tenure as a justice,” with gifts of a “number, value, and extravagance” that have “no comparison in modern American history.”
Justice Samuel Alito took a $100,000+ luxury fishing trip on a private jet paid for by billionaire hedge fund chief Paul Singer—who had business before the Court. Alito later voted in Singer’s favor in a case worth $2.4 billion to the hedge fund.
Both justices failed to disclose these gifts as required by federal law. Both refused to recuse from cases involving their benefactors’ interests. Both investigated themselves and found no wrongdoing.
And both continue serving on the Supreme Court with zero consequences.
This isn’t just about two corrupt justices. It’s about a systemic failure of accountability that proves the Supreme Court cannot police itself—and why we desperately need a binding, enforceable ethics code with independent oversight.
The Thomas Corruption Timeline
Justice Clarence Thomas’s ethical violations span decades and involve millions of dollars in undisclosed gifts from Republican megadonor Harlan Crow.
The Luxury Lifestyle
ProPublica’s groundbreaking investigations revealed:
- Luxury yacht vacations: Nearly annual trips on Crow’s 162-foot superyacht, valued at over $500,000 per trip
- Private jet travel: Dozens of flights on Crow’s private jet to exclusive destinations
- Real estate deal: Crow bought Thomas’s mother’s house and two vacant lots for $133,000, allowed Thomas’s mother to continue living there rent-free, and spent tens of thousands renovating the property
- Private school tuition: Crow paid for Thomas’s grandnephew to attend elite boarding schools, at least two years at $6,000+ per month
- Luxury resort stays: Exclusive trips to the Bohemian Grove, private resorts in California, and other elite destinations
- Rare book and artifact purchases: Crow bought items for his private Thomas collection
The Senate investigation found the total value of gifts Thomas accepted exceeded $4.75 million—the largest amount of undisclosed gifts by any federal official in American history.
The Failure to Disclose
Federal law requires judges to disclose gifts. Thomas didn’t. For decades.
When ProPublica exposed the yacht trips, Thomas claimed he’d been advised that “personal hospitality” didn’t need to be disclosed—an interpretation legal experts called absurd. The private yacht of a billionaire with interests before the Court isn’t “personal hospitality.”
The Refusal to Recuse
Despite accepting millions from Crow, Thomas has:
- Never recused from cases involving Crow’s business interests
- Participated in cases involving the Koch network (Crow is a major Koch donor)
- Voted on cases affecting billionaire donors’ tax interests
- Refused to recuse from January 6 cases despite his wife Ginni Thomas’s involvement in efforts to overturn the 2020 election
The Senate report found that Ginni Thomas’s “paid efforts involving the ‘Stop the Steal’ movement and right-wing causes created a clear conflict of interest” that should have triggered Thomas’s recusal.
He refused.
The Alito Scandals
Justice Samuel Alito’s ethical violations follow the same pattern: luxury trips, undisclosed gifts, refusal to recuse, and zero accountability.
The Paul Singer Fishing Trip
In 2008, billionaire hedge fund manager Paul Singer paid for Alito’s seat on a private jet to Alaska for a luxury fishing trip. The Senate investigation found that Leonard Leo arranged the trip and Singer paid for the flight.
The trip was worth over $100,000. Alito never disclosed it.
Three years later, Singer’s hedge fund had a case before the Supreme Court involving $2.4 billion. Alito voted in Singer’s favor and refused to recuse.
The Insurrection Flags
In 2024, ProPublica and The New York Times revealed that Alito flew flags associated with the January 6 insurrection at his homes:
- An upside-down American flag (a “Stop the Steal” symbol) flew at his Virginia home in January 2021, days after the Capitol attack and before the Court heard January 6-related cases
- An “Appeal to Heaven” flag (carried by January 6 rioters) flew at his New Jersey beach house in summer 2023
When called to recuse from January 6 cases due to obvious bias, Alito refused. He claimed his wife was responsible for the flags—an excuse that, even if true, doesn’t eliminate the appearance of bias.
The Secret Recordings
In June 2024, filmmaker Lauren Windsor secretly recorded Alito at a Supreme Court Historical Society event. Alito complained about media coverage of the ethics scandals, saying critics wanted to “delegitimize the Court” and that there are “fundamental things that really can’t be compromised.”
The recordings revealed a justice angry about accountability, not remorseful about ethical violations.
The Pattern: Corruption Without Consequences
Thomas and Alito’s scandals aren’t isolated incidents. They reveal a systematic pattern:
- Accept luxury gifts from billionaires with interests before the Court
- Fail to disclose the gifts as required by federal law
- Refuse to recuse from cases involving benefactors
- Investigate yourself and find no wrongdoing
- Face zero consequences and continue serving
This pattern is enabled by the Supreme Court’s complete lack of enforceable ethics rules.
Why Self-Policing Has Failed
The Supreme Court is the only court in America without binding ethics rules and independent oversight.
Every Other Judge Faces Accountability
- Lower federal judges: Subject to the Code of Conduct for United States Judges since 1973, with complaints investigated by circuit judicial councils under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act
- State supreme court justices: All 50 states have enforceable ethics codes with independent commissions that investigate misconduct
- Supreme Court justices: Nothing binding, no independent oversight, no penalties for violations
A California Supreme Court justice who accepted $4.75 million in undisclosed gifts would face investigation, likely discipline, and possible removal.
A U.S. Supreme Court justice? He investigates himself, finds no problem, and continues serving.
The November 2023 Code: A PR Exercise
Facing mounting pressure from the Thomas and Alito scandals, the Supreme Court adopted its first-ever written code of conduct in November 2023.
It was designed to fail.
The code has:
- No enforcement mechanism - no process for filing complaints or investigating violations
- No independent oversight - justices police themselves
- No penalties - violations have no consequences
- Loopholes for past conduct - commentary explicitly excuses the very violations that triggered its creation
With 53 uses of “should” and only 6 of “must,” it reads like friendly advice, not binding rules.
As Senator Sheldon Whitehouse stated: “A code of ethics is not binding unless there is a mechanism to investigate possible violations and enforce the rules.”
The Court’s code has neither.
The Call for Impeachment
On July 10, 2024, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez introduced articles of impeachment against both Thomas and Alito, citing their “pattern of refusal to recuse from consequential matters before the court in which they hold widely documented financial and personal entanglements.”
The impeachment articles documented:
- Thomas’s acceptance of millions in undisclosed gifts
- Alito’s luxury trips and refusal to recuse
- Both justices’ systematic failures to follow ethics requirements
- The Court’s lack of accountability mechanisms
The articles went nowhere. Without significant bipartisan support, impeachment isn’t a realistic remedy—which is precisely why we need structural reforms with teeth.
What a Binding Ethics Code Would Look Like
The Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act (SCERT Act), introduced by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, provides exactly what the Court needs:
1. Binding Code of Conduct
- Code must be as restrictive as Congressional ethics rules
- Justices cannot accept gifts beyond what members of Congress can accept
- No more luxury yacht trips, private jets, or undisclosed real estate deals
2. Independent Investigation and Enforcement
- Public complaint process allowing anyone to file ethics complaints
- Random panel of chief judges from lower courts investigates (not the accused justice)
- Written findings and recommendations made public
- Referral to House Judiciary Committee for potential impeachment
This creates real accountability through independent oversight—not self-policing by the accused.
3. Mandatory Recusal Standards
- Justices must recuse when parties lobbied for their confirmation
- Justices must recuse when parties spent money supporting their confirmation
- Panel of randomly selected judges reviews recusal requests
- Written explanations required for all recusal decisions
This prevents justices like Thomas and Alito from deciding their own conflicts of interest.
4. Transparency Requirements
- Amicus brief disclosure of who prepared briefs and who funded them
- Prevents dark money from secretly influencing cases
- Federal Judicial Center reports to Congress every two years on compliance
The Constitutional Authority
Supreme Court defenders claim Congress cannot impose ethics rules on the Court. They’re wrong.
Congress already regulates the Supreme Court extensively:
- Sets the number of justices
- Determines jurisdiction
- Establishes recusal statutes
- Mandates financial disclosure requirements
- Controls the Court’s budget
If Congress can do all that, it can certainly require ethical conduct.
Legal scholars across the political spectrum agree Congress has constitutional authority to impose ethics requirements on the Supreme Court.
The justices’ resistance isn’t about the Constitution—it’s about protecting their privilege to accept luxury gifts without accountability.
Why This Matters for Court Legitimacy
The Supreme Court’s approval rating has plummeted to historic lows. Americans have lost faith in the Court’s impartiality.
When justices openly violate ethical norms with zero consequences:
- Public trust collapses - people stop believing the Court is impartial
- Dark money corruption flourishes - we can’t know who’s influencing decisions
- Justices become politicians - attending partisan events, making political statements
- The Court loses legitimacy - it becomes an oligarchy, not a court of law
A binding ethics code won’t fix everything wrong with the Supreme Court. But it’s a necessary first step toward accountability.
The Bigger Picture: Court Reform Is Urgent
The Thomas and Alito corruption scandals aren’t separate from other Supreme Court crises—they’re part of the same pattern of unaccountable power.
The same Court that:
- Allows justices to accept millions in undisclosed gifts
- Grants presidents immunity for criminal acts using official powers
- Dismantles gun safety laws and regulatory protections
- Overturns precedents based on ideological preferences
- Refuses to follow basic ethical standards
…is a Court that has captured too much power with too little accountability.
The ethics scandals prove that self-regulation doesn’t work. The Court will not voluntarily reform itself. Congressional action is necessary—and urgent.
Conclusion: Corruption Enabled by Design
Justice Clarence Thomas has accepted over $4.75 million in undisclosed gifts from a Republican megadonor. Justice Samuel Alito took a $100,000 luxury trip from a billionaire with cases before the Court, then voted in his favor.
Both violated federal disclosure laws. Both refused to recuse despite obvious conflicts. Both investigated themselves and found no wrongdoing. Both continue serving.
This isn’t a failure of individual ethics. It’s a structural failure enabled by the Supreme Court’s refusal to subject itself to the same rules every other judge in America must follow.
Every other federal judge faces enforceable ethics rules. Every state supreme court justice faces enforceable ethics rules. The nine most powerful judges in America should not be exempt.
The Supreme Court had its chance to adopt meaningful ethics reforms. It chose a toothless code with no enforcement, no oversight, and no consequences.
Congress must act. The Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act provides binding rules, independent investigation, mandatory recusal standards, and real consequences for violations.
The choice is clear: either we establish enforceable ethics rules for Supreme Court justices, or we accept that the Court operates above the law.
One option preserves judicial independence while ensuring accountability. The other enables corruption, erodes public trust, and confirms that the Supreme Court has become precisely what the Founders feared: an unaccountable body wielding unchecked power.
We need a binding ethics code. We needed it decades ago. And every day without one is another day the Supreme Court proves it cannot be trusted to police itself.
The pattern of corruption is clear. The solution is available. All that’s missing is the political will to act.