U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ annual financial disclosure statement was accompanied by a unique letter from his personal attorney, Elliot Berke. The letter was issued in defence of the luxury travel, trips, and property deals that the justice received from Republican mega-donor Harlan Crow.
Berke’s letter, released separately on Thursday, described attacks on Thomas for previous non-disclosure of such gifts as “ridiculous and dangerous.” He emphasised that these attacks establish a “terrible precedent for political blood sport through federal ethics filings.”
Thomas has been persistently accused of breaching financial disclosure laws by not reporting extravagant vacations, tuition payments, and other transactions with Crow. Interestingly, his 2022 disclosure is the first time in at least two decades that he has reported any gifts from Crow.
Despite Berke’s defensive stance, legal ethics experts suggest that the need for a personal attorney’s letter implies that Thomas has not complied with his financial disclosure reporting duties. As Virginia Canter, Chief Ethics Counsel at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), puts it, “He had to go out and hire somebody to defend the indefensible.”
A panel of judges in the Judicial Conference Committee on Financial Disclosures is currently reviewing accusations against Thomas. The panel supervises judiciary compliance with financial disclosure laws.
For some experts, Justice Thomas’ current efforts to fulfil his ethical obligations can be compared to the last-minute repentance of a criminal. James Sample, a Law professor at Hofstra, expressed the sentiment succinctly in an email.
Addressing the allegations, Berke claims that left-leaning groups have been attacking Thomas for months. These accusations mainly arise from his association with personal friends who are also wealthy.
Berke, a familiar face in conservative politics, has represented elected officials, campaign committees, and PACs, amongst others. He serves as external counsel to House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and Majority Whip Tom Emmer, as well as various Congressional committee chairs, Congress members, and the National Republican Congressional Committee.
Demands for the court to implement a binding ethics code in response to the alleged gifts received by Thomas have come from both Democratic lawmakers and ethics experts. Kedric Payne of the Campaign Legal Center believes that explanations given, including those within the disclosures, are primarily intended for the Financial Disclosures Committee.
Later this year, the committee is expected to gather and determine whether Thomas’ disclosure omissions were intentional and whether they warrant a Justice Department investigation.
Meanwhile, Republicans continue to back Thomas, claiming the onslaughts against him are politically motivated.
Despite national debates, it remains clear that the present reporting system needs improvement. Case Western Reserve University Law professor Cassandra Burke Robertson suggests that the justices adhere to an ethics code that not only educates the public about the rules they are following but also holds them accountable.
So far, the court has refrained from adopting any formal code of conduct.
“There’s a pretty high level of mistrust among the public,” Robertson acknowledges, believing that this climate calls for enhanced institutional integrity within the court.