Judicial Regulator Changes Supreme Court Justices’ Gift Disclosure Rules

Supreme Court justices and federal judges need not file public disclosure documents when they eat or stay at a personal residence, including those owned by business entities, a judicial rulemaking body announced on Sept. 23.
The new regulation contrasts with rules the U.S. Judicial Conference issued in March 2023 that mandated greater disclosure of gifts, meals, and trips, making it more difficult to claim an exemption from disclosure on personal hospitality grounds.
When the previous regulation was adopted in 2023, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said it would “make it much harder for justices to travel, dine, hunt or vacation for free at the private resort of a wealthy corporate executive—especially one with business before their court—and avoid disclosing that information to the public.”
The 2023 regulation stated that judges were not required to declare gifts such as entertainment, lodging, or food provided by an individual for a nonbusiness purpose. However, it stipulated that visits to commercial properties such as resorts and hotels should be reported.
The new regulation provides that stays at the personal residence of an individual don’t need to be declared if a separate entity owns the property and it is not used for rentals.
The committee has reportedly been looking at claims that Justice Clarence Thomas improperly failed to declare gifts, including travel and stays at luxury resorts, from Harlan Crow, an affluent Texas businessman and Republican donor who is a longtime friend of the justice.
Congressional Democrats say the gifts are evidence of corruption, but Republicans say there is no evidence that Thomas granted any judicial favors to any of the gift givers. Thomas has said he was told he did not have to report the gifts.
Senate Democrats are promoting the proposed Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act, which would impose new rules on how the nation’s highest court operates. The bill, which is opposed by Republicans, would allow members of the public to file complaints against justices and create a panel of lower court judges with subpoena powers to investigate.
One critic said the newly unveiled rule weakens the reporting requirements introduced last year.
“They might as well call it the Clarence Thomas exemption,” Donald Sherman, chief counsel at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said of the modified policy.
J. Christian Adams, president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, said the new policy was a step in the right direction.
“They should not have to report sleepovers. Even Supreme Court justices can have private lives and have friends,” Adams told The Epoch Times.
The federal Ethics in Government Act of 1978 requires justices and judges to file financial disclosure reports every year.
In 2023, Congress approved legislation that requires judges to publicly disclose stock transactions.