On Wednesday, Judge Thomas Hardiman of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit dismissed the notion of a “scandal” surrounding Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Last week, ProPublica published an article in which “experts,” some unnamed, argue Justice Thomas violated disclosure obligations by neglecting to report luxury gifts he received from billionaire friend Harlan Crow.
Washington Free Beacon reporter Aaron Sibarium interviewed Judge James Ho of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and Judge Hardiman for an event at Princeton University on April 12th, sponsored by the Princeton Federalist Society chapter, the Princeton Pre-Law Society, and Princetonians for Free Speech. Approximately 30 students attended.
“The thing that I thought was weird about the Justice Thomas thing is the ‘scandal,’ to use your word, there was no intimation at any time, ever, that his billionaire friend ever had any business before the Supreme Court. So, how’s he helping his friend? He’s not even in a position to help his friend because his friend had exactly zero cases in the Supreme Court,” Judge Hardiman said in response to a question posed by an undergraduate during the audience Q-and-A, who referenced the ProPublica article.
“You know, I decide cases involving lawyers in Pittsburgh. And I know these lawyers, some of them are former law partners of mine. I belong to organizations with them, I go to lunch with them. Should I not hear their cases? If you have such suspicion about our integrity, you could really end up in a situation where judges can’t even do their jobs because at some point you’re attached to everybody,” Hardiman continued.
“I’ve had my former law clerks stand up in court and argue cases. And I don’t think they’ve ever won a case,” Hardiman said, prompting laughter from the audience. “And it’s not because they’re not brilliant lawyers. They are. But usually they’re doing pro bono immigration cases, and sadly, for the immigrants, those cases can be very difficult to win.”
“If someone wanted to make me look bad and I happened to rule in favor of a client in an immigration case that was argued by my former law clerk, oh, there would be a big exposé, ‘oh, Hardiman chose partiality to his law clerk,’” Hardiman said.
“I think that’s a great answer,” Judge Ho responded, who clerked for Justice Thomas at the Supreme Court. Ho distinguished between “an actual instance of corruption” and “the mere perception” of it, but stated that “I think the appearance issue is absolutely important” because “the judiciary basically rests on its credibility” and therefore “it is absolutely vital to what we do that people believe in what we do.”
“The judiciary, like any human institution, isn’t perfect, because none of us are perfect,” Ho added.
Today, ProPublica published an article stating that Crow purchased property owned by Justice Thomas, his mother, and the family of Thomas’ late brother, which was not disclosed.