Justice Clarence Thomas, harassed by Democrats over his relationship with Republican megadonor Harlan Crow, was questioned again by blue party lawmakers for failing to mention three private jet trips provided by the real estate mogul.

According to the Senate Judiciary Committee reports Judge Thomas did not disclose information about three trips he took on private jets financed by Crow. One of those trips was from St. Louis to Montana and back to Dallas in 2017; another was a round trip from Washington to Savannah, Georgia, in 2019; and the most recent was a round trip from Washington to San Jose in 2021.

“Nearly $4.2 million in gifts and even that wasn’t enough for Justice Thomas, with at least three additional trips the Committee found that he has failed to disclose to date,” said Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), in a statement.

“The Senate Judiciary Committee’s ongoing investigation into the Supreme Court’s ethical crisis is producing new information — like what we’ve revealed today — and makes it crystal clear that the highest court needs an enforceable code of conduct, because its members continue to choose not to meet the moment,” added the Democrat.

The new revelation comes months after the ProPublica organization exposed that Thomas had taken multimillion-dollar trips financed by Crow, who classified the judge as a great family friend.

At the time, ProPublica's investigation sparked a huge ethical debate about Thomas's relationship with Crow.

Judge Thomas defended himself, saying he did not disclose Crow's multimillion-dollar gifts in his previous financial statements because the code of ethics did not require him to disclose gifts or “personal hospitality” benefits he received from the Crow family. Following this revelation, there were revisions to the ethical standards, and the judge promised to consider the changes in his next financial statements.

On this occasion, his lawyer, Elliot S. Berke, also explained that Judge Thomas did nothing to violate the previous code of ethics despite the new accusations from Democrats.

In particular, Berke explained that the three trips fell under the “personal hospitality exemption” under the unrevised rules and did not need to be disclosed.

“The Judicial Conference changed this provision last year, and Justice Thomas has fully complied with the new disclosure requirement,” Berke said in a statement. “Prior to this change, the provision, set forth in the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts’ Guide to Judiciary Policy, stated that federal judges should not report gifts of personal hospitality based on personal relationships.”

“Consequently, and as Justice Thomas has already explained, he and many other federal judges were advised that they were not required to report gifts of personal hospitality from friends who did not have business before the Court,” Berke concluded, attempting to settle the dispute.