Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was at one time so concerned about his finances that he quietly pushed for a salary increase and for justices to be allowed to accept speaking fees, according to a new report that was promptly criticized by Justice Thomas’s allies.
The article, which appears to shed some light on Justice Thomas’s financial situation before he gained wealthy benefactors, comes as Senate Democrats push legislation that would impose a code of conduct on the Supreme Court, a bill Republicans say is unconstitutional.
The court adopted a code of conduct on its own on Nov. 13, but Democrats say it lacks teeth because it allows the court to police itself. The bill was previously approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote but faces an uncertain future.
Democrats are angry about several ethical lapses allegedly committed by Justice Thomas. They have complained at length about wealthy Republican donor Harlan Crow’s many gifts to Justice Thomas, his close friend, including luxurious vacations, tuition support for a grandnephew he raised, and a purchase of low-dollar real estate from the justice’s family.
Justice Thomas didn’t disclose the events originally, saying he was advised that it wasn’t required, but has vowed to disclose such events going forward.
ProPublica has published a series of articles about Supreme Court ethics and gifts received by Justice Thomas. Some of the reported facts have been disputed by Thomas allies.
The new article was lambasted by former Ambassador Chris Landau, who previously worked for Justice Thomas. Mr. Landau was U.S. envoy to Mexico from 2019 to 2021 under President Donald Trump.
Mr. Landau, who has known Justice Thomas for 35 years, was his first law clerk on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the Supreme Court.
“In all the years I have known him, I do not remember him ever complaining about his own pay or suggesting that he might resign from the Supreme Court as a result of his pay,” Mr. Landau said in a statement posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, by Thomas ally Mark Paoletta.
Mr. Paoletta previously found fault with earlier ProPublica reports about Justice Thomas and his alleged ethical shortcomings consisting of receiving gifts and not reporting them.
Mr. Paoletta referred to the new report as the media outlet’s “latest smear job” on the justice. Mr. Paoletta was general counsel to the Office of Management and Budget under President Trump, and before that, was chief counsel to then-Vice President Mike Pence.
Possibility of Resigning
According to ProPublica, by 2000 Justice Thomas was hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. He had recently begun raising his grandnephew and had borrowed $267,000 from a friend to purchase a high-end recreational vehicle.In the early 1990s, Justice Thomas and his wife purchased a house in Virginia for $522,000, with a down payment of $8,000. The couple obtained a $100,000 line of credit on their home and a $50,000 consumer loan.
After delivering a speech at a conservative conference in early 2000, he found himself seated on the airplane ride home with an acquaintance, then-Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.). Mr. Stearns came away with the impression from their discussion that Justice Thomas might resign from the court.
If Congress failed to give Supreme Court justices a pay boost, “one or more justices will leave soon,” possibly in the coming year, Justice Thomas reportedly told Mr. Stearns.
“As we agreed, it is worth a lot to Americans to have the constitution properly interpreted. We must have the proper incentives here, too.”
Although at the time, Justice Thomas’s salary was $173,000, or more than $300,000 in 2023 dollars, he was one of the poorest members of the court.
‘Constitutional Crisis’
Judicial pay “was a major public policy issue during the 1990s and 2000s,” according to Mr. Landau.In his 2006 year-end report on the federal judiciary, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that “the issue has been ignored far too long and has now reached the level of a constitutional crisis,” as the difference in pay between the private and public sectors threatens to take a toll on the judiciary, Mr. Landau wrote.
Many people were concerned about judicial pay and “those concerns were well founded,” but “any attempt to imply that Justice Thomas ever complained about his own personal pay, or entertained the notion of resigning from the Supreme Court as a result of the pay, is baseless,” Mr. Landau said in his statement.
Justice Thomas had discussed with another judge “removing the honoraria limitations on justices.”
The memo referred to legislation Mr. Stearns was drafting to boost the justices’ salaries.
“From a tactical point of view, given the public statements made largely by Democratic lobbyists, it will not take the Democrats and liberals in Congress very long to figure out that the prime beneficiaries who might otherwise leave the Court presumably are Justices Thomas and [Antonin] Scalia.
“The Democrats might be perfectly happy to have them leave and would see little incentive to act on separate legislation devoted solely to Supreme Court justices if the apparent purpose is to keep Justices Scalia and Thomas on the Court,” Mr. Meacham wrote.
Mr. Stearns told ProPublica that lawmakers were concerned because Justice Thomas’s “importance as a conservative was paramount. We wanted to make sure he felt comfortable in his job and he was being paid properly.”
In the time since, Congress did not repeal the ban on speaking fees or give justices a major increase in salary.
Subpoena
Yet after 2000 Justice Thomas began receiving gifts from wealthy friends that have angered Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), the principal sponsor of the code of conduct bill.Mr. Whitehouse has said the committee is subpoenaing Mr. Crow in its ongoing investigation of the nation’s highest court because “billionaires who are invested heavily in influencing the Supreme Court have been caught giving enormous secret gifts to individual justices.”
Justice Thomas’s defenders point out that it is not against the law or any ethical code to have wealthy friends, and that there is no evidence the justice’s vote on any matter before the court has been swayed by anyone’s largesse toward him.
And the ProPublica article acknowledges that “there’s no evidence the justice ever raised the specter of resigning with Crow or his other wealthy benefactors.”
Yale Law School professor George Priest, a friend of Justice Thomas, reportedly said Mr. Crow’s generosity was intended to make the justice’s life more comfortable, not to influence him.
“He views Thomas as a Supreme Court justice as having a limited salary,” Mr. Priest said. “So he provides benefits for him.”
The Epoch Times has reached out to the Supreme Court and Justice Thomas for comment.
