In a recent development, it has been revealed that Justice Clarence Thomas took several more trips on the private plane of GOP megadonor Harlan Crow than previously known. Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin obtained the information, uncovering Thomas' travels on Crow's private jet during trips in 2017, 2019, and 2021 between various US states. This adds to the previously disclosed 2019 trip to Indonesia, during which Thomas and his wife also stayed on Crow's mega-yacht.

These newly revealed private plane trips shed light on the opulent travel enjoyed by Thomas, funded by friends of the justice with conservative political ties. Concerns have been raised about Thomas' failure to include such trips on the financial disclosure forms released annually by the justices. However, Thomas and his defenders argue that he followed the court's disclosure rules as they were understood at the time.

This revelation will likely increase tension between the conservative-leaning Supreme Court and Democrats on Capitol Hill, who have been advocating for stronger ethics rules for over a year. The court's public approval ratings have reached historic lows due to a series of ethics scandals involving Thomas and, more recently, Justice Samuel Alito.

Last year, the federal judiciary's policy-making body closed a loophole that exempted justices from reporting travel on private planes, following stories by ProPublica about Thomas' lavish lifestyle. Critics of the court argue that the current understanding of the disclosure rules should apply retroactively.

Thomas, through a court spokeswoman, did not respond to inquiries about the new revelations and why the trips were not disclosed. Previously, he stated that he was advised at the time that he did not need to disclose the hospitality he received from the Crows. However, he intended to adhere to the recent changes in disclosure guidelines going forward. Defenders of Thomas point to a 2012 letter from the Judicial Conference that cleared him of claims that he should have reported his trips with Crow.

In his financial disclosures for 2023, Thomas acknowledged omitting a hotel stay and accommodations paid for by the Crows during the 2019 Indonesia trip. Yet, he did not disclose his travel on Crow's private plane, as revealed by Durbin. According to documents released by Durbin, Thomas traveled on Crow's plane to various destinations, including Montana, Dallas, Savannah, and San Jose.

Senator Durbin, in a statement, emphasized the ongoing investigation by the Senate Judiciary Committee into the Supreme Court's ethical crisis. He called for an enforceable code of conduct, as the justices continue to choose not to meet the moment, alluding to the Supreme Court ethics legislation proposed by Senate Democrats. However, Republicans blocked a procedural maneuver by Durbin to pass the bill on the Senate floor.

Attorney Elliot Berke, representing Thomas, argued that the trips fell under the "hospitality exemption" and were not required to be disclosed. Mark Paoletta, a former top Trump administration official and Thomas ally, added that the justice had disclosed the hotel and private club stays because they were not covered under the personal hospitality exemption until the revision in 2023.

Democrats, led by Durbin, launched investigations into the gifts and extravagant travel received by Thomas, following a ProPublica report that detailed the Indonesia trip and other lavish trips with Crow and his wife. Crow, described by Thomas as one of his family's "dearest friends," stated that he had never discussed matters before the judiciary with the justice.

In response to the revelations, Crow's spokesperson, Michael Zona, mentioned that Crow had reached an agreement with the Senate Judiciary Committee to provide requested information dating back seven years. As part of the agreement, the Committee agreed to conclude its probe concerning Crow.

As this story continues to unfold, it highlights the ongoing debate surrounding ethics within the highest court and the push for stricter rules and regulations to maintain public trust in the judicial system.