There’s
an
episode
of
Seinfeld
where
George
has
sex
with
a
cleaning
lady
on
his
office
desk
and
when
confronted
responds,
“Was
that
wrong?
Should
I
have
not
done
that?”
But,
since
Seinfeld
more
closely
tracks
a
universe
where
actions
have
logical
consequences,
George
got
fired
and
Clarence
Thomas
gets
to
plead
ignorance
about
a
nearly
five-decade-old
law.
Thomas,
who
has
forgotten
more
vacations
than
you’ll
ever
know,
has
been
the
subject
of
a
Senate
Judiciary
inquiry
ever
since
ProPublica
first
identified
around
half
a
million
in
luxury
travel
and
gifts
without
disclosing
any
of
it
as
legally
required
by
the
Ethics
in
Government
Act
of
1978.
Along
the
way,
we’ve
learned
about
free
tuition,
free
housing,
and
an
RV
(which
might
also
have
been
free).
The
legislators
wrote
the
Judicial
Conference
asking
the
Article
III
institution
to
do
its
job
under
the
statute
and
refer
Thomas
to
the
Department
of
Justice.
Almost
two
years
after
the
fact,
the
Conference
has
decided
to
do
nothing
instead.
In
a
letter
from
the
Judicial
Conference
to
Senator
Sheldon
Whitehouse,
Secretary
of
the
Judicial
Conference
Judge
Robert
Conrad
said
that
they’d
decided
against
doing
anything
because
Thomas
was
probably
just
confused
about
how
to
read
the
plain
meaning
of
a
law.
A
plausible
excuse
based
upon
his
jurisprudence
generally,
but
highly
suspect
here.
In
March
and
April
2023,
the
Financial
Disclosure
Committee,
with
the
approval
of
the
Judicial
Conference,
issued
guidance
that
the
personal
hospitality
gift
reporting
exemption
applies
only
to
food,
lodging,
or
entertainment.
The
exemption,
it
explained,
does
not
apply
to
gifts
of
“transportation
that
substitute[]
for
commercial
transportation,”
gifts
“extended
for
a
business
purpose,”
or
gifts
“extended
at
a
commercial
property,
e.g.,
a
resort
or
restaurant,
or
at
a
property
that
is
regularly
rented
out
to
others
for
a
business
purpose.”
The
Financial
Disclosure
Committee,
generally
speaking,
does
not
apply
new
guidance
retroactively
to
previously
filed
reports.
This
is
the
“I
didn’t
hear
anyone
say
‘Simon
Says’”
of
excuses.
The
problem
with
“not
apply[ing]
new
guidance
retroactively,”
is
that
presumes
there’s
something
“new”
about
the
guidance.
No
one
was
actually
confused
over
the
scope
of
this
exception
before
this.
No
one
thought
an
exception
for
crashing
on
your
college
roommate’s
couch
was
the
same
as
“having
a
billionaire
give
your
mom
a
house
rent
free.”
Elena
Kagan
thought
a
fucking
bagel
basket
from
her
high
school
classmates
put
her
in
breach
of
this
law!
Everyone
knew!
More
to
the
point,
when
some
of
the
allegations
in
this
matter
include
auto
loan
forgiveness
shenanigans
and
off-the-books
payments,
there’s
more
than
a
little
to
suggest
that
Thomas
knew.
At
least
enough
suggestion
that
the
case
would
benefit
from
a
DOJ
inquiry.
“Not
only
do
presidents
have
absolute
immunity
from
prosecution
for
violating
the
law,
but
now
Supreme
Court
justices
enjoy
immunity
for
law-breaking,
as
well,”
explained
Fix
the
Court’s
Gabe
Roth.
“That
is
as
shameful
as
it
is
contrary
to
the
plain-text
reading
of
the
financial
disclosure
law,
which
sets
clear
guidelines
about
the
types
of
gifts
that
need
to
be
reported
—
which
Justice
Thomas
has
obviously
and
frequently
violated
over
the
years
—
and
includes
real
consequences
for
violations.”
Alas,
the
Conference
explained
that
Thomas
has
made
some
changes
so
everyone
should
just
chill.
Justice
Thomas
has
filed
amended
financial
disclosure
statements
that
address
several
issues
identified
in
your
letter.
“Several”
is
conspicuously
not
“all.”
Which
may
sound
like
nitpicking,
but
lawyers
—
especially
judges
—
aren’t
casual
with
words
like
these.
When
he
says,
“several”
he
means
“not
all”
and
it
would
be
interesting
to
get
more
clarity
on
just
what
it
doesn’t
include.
But
even
if
the
Conference
hadn’t
found
a
way
to
excuse
Thomas
as
confused,
the
letter
suggests
they
might
have
tried
to
avoid
their
legal
obligations
the
old
fashioned
way
by
declaring
the
Supreme
Court
exempt
from
any
consequences:
First,
the
Judicial
Conference
has
never
taken
a
position
on
whether
its
referral
authority
under
5
U.S.C.
§
13106(b)—to
refer
judges
to
the
Attorney
General
for
investigation
into
whether
they
have
“willfully”
violated
their
reporting
obligations—applies
to
Justices
of
the
Supreme
Court
of
the
United
States.
The
question,
to
be
clear,
is
not
whether
the
Ethics
in
Government
Act
applies
to
the
Justices
of
the
Court.
It
is
whether
the
Judicial
Conference’s
referral
authority
applies
to
the
Justices.
There
is
reason
to
doubt
that
the
Conference
has
any
such
authority.
Because
the
Judicial
Conference
does
not
superintend
the
Supreme
Court
and
because
any
effort
to
grant
the
Conference
such
authority
would
raise
serious
constitutional
questions,
one
would
expect
Congress
at
a
minimum
to
state
any
such
directive
clearly.
Not
to
get
all
originalist,
but
this
is
hogwash.
Roth
explains, “The
Conference
writing
the
justices
out
of
much
of
the
disclosure
law
is
also
ahistorical,
as
the
law
was
drafted
shortly
after
two
justices
were
found
to
have
accepted
outside
—
and
arguably
unethical
—
income.
”
But,
as
Chief
Justice
Roberts
explained
earlier
this
week,
it’s
wrong
to
point
out
that
your
judicial
emperor
wears
no
clothes.
(Letter
on
the
next
page…)
Earlier: Clarence
Thomas
Has
Forgotten
More
Vacations
Than
You’ll
Ever
Know
Senators
Beg
Merrick
Garland
To
Do
His
Job
And
Investigate
Clarence
Thomas
If
You’ve
Appreciated
The
Service
You’ve
Received,
Consider
Tipping
Your
Supreme
Court
Justices!
Clarence
Thomas
Took
EVEN
MORE
Free
Trips
On
Private
Planes
That
He’s
Still
Not
Disclosed!
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.