The House Judiciary Committee, led by Rep. Jim Jordan, has made headlines for aggressively scrutinizing Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s investigation into Donald Trump. But there’s a glaring omission: no comparable attention to the red flags swirling around Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his financial ties to GOP megadonor Harlan Crow.

This selective oversight raises questions about priorities, political motivations, and the larger issue of accountability at the highest levels of government. Let’s go beyond the headlines and unpack why this matters, what most people are missing, and what history shows us about Congress’s role in judicial ethics.

Why This Matters
- Judicial integrity is the bedrock of a functioning democracy. If Supreme Court justices are perceived as compromised, trust in the entire legal system erodes.
- Congressional oversight isn’t optional—it’s a constitutional check. The House Judiciary Committee is supposed to safeguard the justice system, not selectively defend political allies while ignoring serious ethical questions elsewhere.
- The Supreme Court has no formal code of conduct—unlike every other federal court. The public relies on Congress to step in when self-policing fails.
Key Takeaways
- Clarence Thomas accepted decades of undisclosed luxury travel and real estate deals from Harlan Crow—potentially violating federal disclosure laws.
- Ethics experts widely regard Thomas’s lack of disclosure as a breach. Four told ProPublica that his omissions appear to break the law.
- The same House Judiciary Committee that historically investigated and recommended impeachment for ethical breaches (see: Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr., 2010) is now silent on Thomas.
- The Senate Judiciary Committee, meanwhile, is moving forward with hearings on Supreme Court ethics, highlighting the partisan divide in congressional oversight.
What Most People Miss
- This isn’t just a Clarence Thomas story—it’s an institutional failure story. The real scandal is that the mechanisms for accountability are being weaponized for partisan ends, not public trust.
- According to a 2023 Gallup poll, trust in the Supreme Court is at a historic low (25% of Americans express “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence).
- History shows that when Congress ignores credible ethics concerns (see the 1969 Abe Fortas resignation), it invites further erosion of public faith in the judiciary.
- The financial entanglements exposed by ProPublica are not isolated incidents—they point to the need for systemic reform in judicial ethics at the highest level.
Pros and Cons: Congressional Inaction
- Pros (for those in power): Avoids uncomfortable political battles; shields allies; keeps partisan momentum.
- Cons (for the nation): Damages credibility of oversight; sets dangerous precedent; undermines public trust in the courts.
Timeline: Congressional Responses to Judicial Ethics
- 2010: House Judiciary Committee investigates Judge Porteous, recommends impeachment.
- 2023: ProPublica exposes Thomas’s undisclosed gifts and real estate deals.
- 2023: House Judiciary Committee focuses on defending Trump, ignores Thomas revelations.
- 2023: Senate Judiciary Committee announces hearings on Supreme Court ethics standards.
Action Steps: What Can Be Done?
- Congress should hold hearings on Supreme Court ethics and update disclosure laws.
- Public pressure and media scrutiny can force transparency and accountability.
- Support bipartisan efforts to establish a Supreme Court code of conduct.
“The Committee on the Judiciary has been called the lawyer for the House of Representatives. Under Jordan, that description needs to be updated to state that the Committee on the Judiciary is now the lawyer for Donald J. Trump.”
The Bottom Line
Congressional oversight should not be a partisan tool. The Clarence Thomas-Harlan Crow revelations demand the same rigorous scrutiny that lesser scandals have received in the past. When political leaders pick and choose which ethical breaches to address, it’s the public—and the credibility of our institutions—that pays the price.












