Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas took aim at increasing criticism regarding his recent ethics controversies, including his refusal to step away from several rulings involving the 2020 election subversion case due to his wife’s efforts to keep President Donald Trump in power and his casual acceptance of gifts from a number of billionaire Republican donors.
During a May 10 panel discussion at a judicial conference for the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Point Clear, Alabama, Thomas called Washington a “hideous place” while blasting the “nastiness” and “lies” directed at him and his wife, Ginni, around the nation’s capital and beyond.
“My wife and I, the last two or three years, it’s been — just the nastiness and the lies — it’s just incredible,” Thomas said after being asked by the moderator, U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, whether his job on the bench required a degree of courage.
Thomas, part of the court’s conservative majority, said his reputation has been constantly under attack throughout the past year, but he very delicately avoided discussing the ongoing controversies that have kept his name in the media.
He also did not directly mention the damaging series of ethics reports that have haunted him in the media over the same period, including a scandal involving luxury travel and gifts extended to Thomas over the past 20 or more years.
“Being in Washington, you have to get used to, particularly, people who are reckless,” said Thomas. “They don’t bomb you, necessarily, but they bomb your reputation or your good name or your honor. And that’s not a crime but they can do as much harm that way.”
Social media users had a field day slamming Thomas for failing to acknowledge the ethical concerns raised by his questionable judicial actions.
Most notable among the critics was Berkeley professor and political commentator Robert Reich, who released a video statement on the platform X, calling out Thomas for his participation in an upcoming ruling on the legality of the wealth tax, which would directly affect Thomas’ donors.
“Clarence Thomas recently denounced the ‘nastiness’ of his critics,” he wrote. “Well, let me remind you of another Thomas conflict of interest: Not recusing from Moore v. U.S. A ruling in this case will be given soon, and it could permanently shield his billionaire buddies from a wealth tax.”
A flurry of memes and official statements called on Thomas to resign, but a trickle of voices praised him, calling him a “National Hero” and “one of the greatest conservatives to ever live.”
Most people, however, criticized Thomas for his perceived audacity and called for his impeachment.
One user called Thomas “one of the most privileged, corrupt criminals in the country with a crazy ass coup plotting cult wife. He should STFU and work on restoring his reputation instead of crying like a victim.”
Another major controversy for Thomas involves his refusal to recuse himself from Trump’s unprecedented legal appeals, which claim absolute immunity from criminal charges for his failed efforts to overturn Joe Biden’s election win four years ago because he was still the incumbent.
Thomas, 75, said he is simply trying to do his job, and he contrasted himself with military service members and first responders, saying it would be disrespectful to them if he did not “sit at my desk and make decisions with a lifetime appointment that we know are the right decisions.”
He also expressed concern about the decline in trust between the nine justices, noting that the 2022 leak of a draft abortion opinion overturning Roe vs. Wade would never have occurred decades ago when he was first appointed to the court following a contentious Senate hearing in which Thomas was accused of sexual harassment.
During last week’s panel discussion, Thomas compared the Roe vs. Wade leak to an “infidelity,” indicating that the repercussions of the breach were still fresh in his mind.
“We may have been a dysfunctional family, but we were a family,” Thomas said of the court when he was confirmed in 1991. “It would be inconceivable that anyone would leak an opinion of the court or do anything to intentionally harm one another.”
The rare public comments by Thomas followed an explosive report by ProPublica last spring that revealed Thomas had taken gifts from a number of wealthy Republican megadonors, including former Berkshire Hathaway executive David Sokol, former Miami Dolphins owner H. Wayne Huizenga, and Dallas real estate tycoon Harlan Crow, among others.
The allegations led to an investigation by the Senate Finance Committee amid growing calls for tougher ethics rules and for Thomas to resign.
After the scandal came to light, Thomas was forced to revise his financial disclosure forms, and last year, the Supreme Court implemented a code of conduct for the first time in its history, although many lawmakers said these measures did not go far enough.
During the talk, Thomas complained that his friendships had become strained over the allegations, suggesting he was being shunned in his private life.
“That’s before they started attacking my friends,” Thomas said. “I hope I still have some.”
Thomas repeatedly turned his ire toward what he called a vitriolic culture in Washington.
“I think what you’re gonna find, and especially in Washington, [is] people pride themselves in being awful,” he said, prompting a brief moment of laughter from the audience.
“It is a hideous place, as far as I’m concerned,” Thomas said, adding that he would rather be in a place where people “don’t pride themselves in doing harmful things merely because they have the capacity to do it.”
During his remarks, Thomas repeated concerns by other justices about the Supreme Court’s applications docket, which handles emergency requests like those seen during Trump’s ongoing legal saga. This docket has faced criticism for its quick decisions, lack of oral arguments, and often unclear voting outcomes.
“I think there’s some concern about that among my colleagues – certainly with me – because it short circuits our process,” Thomas said. “The way that we’re doing it now, I think, is not a thorough way of dealing with very, very difficult issues.”
As he continued to address his critics, Thomas indicated that the past year of controversy had taught him not to respond with “nastiness for nastiness.”
“You have some choices. You don’t get to prevent people from doing horrible things or saying horrible things,” Thomas said, adding he had accepted “the fact that they can’t change you unless you permit that.”
