Our Supreme Court Is In Dire Need of Reform

In a court of law, would you trust a judge who’s vacationed with your opponent? How about a judge who has received a motor home from your opponent? What if this trial had larger political implications that could influence many people? In its current state, these are valid questions to consider when considering our Supreme Court’s ethics.   

In recent years, Supreme Court justices have been under fire for not disclosing gifts that total to large sums from high-profile donors. On Saturday, December 21, a Senate report revealed that Justice Clarence Thomas received more lavish gifts, including luxury vacations, than previously thought. This report follows a two-year-long investigation of the Supreme Court’s ethics spearheaded by Congress Democrats. 

Such luxury travel includes airfare to the Adirondacks via private jet and a separate yacht and plane trip to New York City, which occurred in 2021 and were left out of Justice Thomas’s financial disclosure report. Harlan Crow, a billionaire former chairman and CEO of the Tramell Crow Company, financed these trips. 

These weren’t the only gifts Justice Thomas received. According to an article from fixthecourt.com, Justice Thomas is predicted to have been given as much as $4 million worth of gifts since 2004. That tally was predicted before this recent report that more trips were taken than previously thought. 

Comedian John Oliver dedicated an episode of his show “Last Week Tonight” to the ethics of Justice Thomas receiving gifts. He even offered Justice Thomas a new motor home and $1 million a year in exchange for his retirement, an offer which appeared in many headlines. 

Justice Thomas isn’t the only justice who accepts gifts (although he has received the most). Justice Samuel Alito has also received gifts, including a luxury fishing trip in 2008 that Paul Singer, a billionaire with known Republican leanings, funded. This trip was not disclosed on his financial disclosure report. 

The Supreme Court is the highest court of law in the United States of America. Its purpose is to interpret the Constitution and ensure that the laws and practices of the Legislative and Executive branches are carried out in accordance with it. This tall order requires justices to be as impartial as possible to ensure minimal bias, and the American people’s trust is pivotal. But when justices accept lavish gifts from billionaires, it’s hard to trust that decisions are still impartial, especially considering the political biases of these donors.

Both donors listed above were involved or had stakes in cases taken to the Supreme Court. Paul Singer’s hedge fund went before the court numerous times, including in 2014 when Justice Alito voted with the majority in favor of Singer. Justice Thomas has ruled favorably for Harlan Crow, including in overturning the Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council decision from 1984 that the Tramell Crow Company has often been at odds with. 

Recently, Democrats in Congress have proposed possible reforms for the Supreme Court and challenged it in other ways. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a House Representative from New York, filed articles of impeachment against Justice Thomas and Justice Alito. Ocasio-Cortez also joined forces with Maryland Representative Jamie Raskin to introduce a ban on gifts for Supreme Court justices. These are just a few of many examples of proposed reforms. 

The bottom line is that Americans deserve a Supreme Court built on transparency and trust. Our current Supreme Court is far from that ideal. Whether it be from other branches of government or the Supreme Court itself, it’s very clear that the Supreme Court needs some reassessing to uphold its supposed true nature: the highest and fairest court in the United States of America.