NRPLUS MEMBER ARTICLE I n the latest attempted attack on Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas, several journalists and “judicial ethics” experts have portrayed him as violating the law for not listing trips on his financial disclosure, including flights on private jets and vacation stays at the home of his longtime friend Harlan Crow. But this portrayal is wrong. Justice Thomas did not have to disclose such trips. There are two definitive pieces of evidence for this: the Judicial Conference’s change to its interpretive guidance in March, and an exchange Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.) had last year with a Senate Judiciary Committee witness in which they both recognized a scenario such as this wouldn’t be disclosable. It’s important to understand that Justice Thomas acted properly and consistent with the rules, as next week the Democrat-led Senate Judiciary Committee will have a hearing where Democrats will push this false narrative as part of their broader campaign to delegitimize the Court. (Full disclosure: I worked on Justice Thomas’s confirmation as a lawyer in White House in 1991, have co-edited a book on him titled Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words, and remain close friends with him. I have also represented Ginni Thomas in the January 6 Committee inquiry.)

Before turning to the facts, let’s make one thing clear: This latest effort by the Left has nothing to do with “ethics.” It has everything to do with trying to destroy the Supreme Court now that there is a working majority of justices moving the Court firmly in an originalist direction. The Left is enraged that it no longer can count on the Court to implement the progressive policies that it cannot pass in Congress. And at the top of their hit list is Justice Thomas. He withstood the Left’s unprecedented assault on him 30 years ago, has never bowed to their continuing attacks, and has set forth a robust originalist jurisprudence in more than 700 opinions that is now commanding majorities in so many areas, from abortion and the Second Amendment to religious liberties and reining in the out-of-control administrative state.

Now let’s turn to the facts. The United States Judicial Conference, which is composed of federal judges and which issues regulations to implement the Ethics in Government Act for the federal judiciary, added language to the definition of “personal hospitality” for the first time to exclude trips on private jets and stays at vacation homes that are owned by an entity rather than an individual. Judges will now have to disclose trips that previously fell under “personal hospitality.”

News reports certainly covered it this way. According to a March 29 New York Times report, “Supreme Court justices will be required to disclose more of their activities, including some free trips, air travel and other types of gifts, according to new rules adopted earlier this month.” Even Senator Whitehouse explained it this way: “The Judicial Conference of the United States has adopted new, stricter rules requiring far more disclosure of free trips, meals, and other ‘hospitality’ accepted by federal judges and Supreme Court justices” (emphasis added).

It is obvious that before these rules were adopted, justices did not have to disclose travel on private jets and stays at vacation homes of friends under the personal-hospitality rule. And that’s how Justice Thomas correctly interpreted the rule. In his statement after ProPublica’s hit piece was published, Justice Thomas stated that he consulted with colleagues at the Court and in the federal judiciary and was advised that this was the proper interpretation of the rules.

Even Stephen Gillers, a left-wing judicial-ethics expert often quoted in these sorts of stories, stated that “before the recent amendments, the situation was sufficiently vague to give Thomas a basis to claim that reporting was not required.”

Moreover, there is a video Senator Sheldon Whitehouse helpfully posted recently on Twitter of an exchange he had with a Senate Judiciary Committee witness at a hearing last year on this issue. In the hearing, both Whitehouse and witness agreed with Justice Thomas’s interpretation. Senator Whitehouse asked Kedric Payne, of the far-left Campaign Legal Center, if he agreed that a justice wouldn’t have to disclose a “free vacation” under the then-current personal-hospitality rule. Payne agreed because “the way that rule is interpreted is not clear by the courts and it could be used in that way.”

Senator Whitehouse and Kedric Payne do not like the way this rule was implemented. But that is immaterial to the conclusion that Justice Thomas had no obligation to disclose these innocuous trips. The simple fact is that this was permissible.

There should be no more debate on this point. Justice Thomas acted properly, and in a manner consistent with the rules in place at the time. He was not required to disclose these trips on his financial-disclosure forms. But don’t expect his critics to concede that. Instead, look for more attacks on the Court. It’s been more than 30 years since Justice Thomas was confirmed. Yet the Left shows no sign of letting up its smear campaign against him. A “high-tech lynching” indeed.