Supreme Court Justices Do Not Have to Disclose Personal Residences, Updated Policy Reveals
In a recent development, U.S. Supreme Court justices and federal judges are not required to publicly disclose when they dine or stay at someone's personal residence, even if it is owned by a business entity. This new rule, issued by the U.S. Judicial Conference's Committee on Financial Disclosure, has sparked criticism as it has been seen to weaken ethics requirements.
The committee's decision comes amidst allegations of Justice Clarence Thomas failing to report gifts, including luxury travel, from wealthy Texas businessman Harlan Crow. Critics have dubbed the amended policy as the "Clarence Thomas exemption."
The U.S. Supreme Court has faced increasing ethics controversies, with concerns raised by Democratic lawmakers and court reform advocates regarding undisclosed trips and gifts involving certain justices. The updated disclosure regulations aim to clarify the definition of "personal hospitality" received at personal residences owned by corporate entities, which judges are not required to disclose.
This change has been met with backlash, as some believe it waters down stricter regulations announced last year. The new policy may exempt past stays by Thomas at Crow's properties, such as Camp Topridge, from disclosure requirements.
Despite efforts to adopt stricter regulations earlier this year, the latest rule change allows stays at a host's personal residence to go undisclosed if the property is owned by an entity and not regularly rented out as a commercial property.
In conclusion, the revised ethics rule regarding the disclosure of personal residences by Supreme Court justices and federal judges has sparked debate and criticism. It is important for the public to stay informed about these developments as they could impact the transparency and accountability of the judiciary system.