July 3, 2024

The Honorable Merrick Garland

Attorney General of the United States
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Attorney General Garland:

We write to request that you appoint a Special Counsel to investigate possible violations of
federal ethics and tax laws by Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Clarence Thomas. Over
the past year, public reporting and Senate investigations have uncovered evidence of repeated
and willful omissions of gifts and income from Justice Thomas’s financial disclosure reports
required by the Ethics in Government Act. The Senate is investigating these omissions as it
considers improvements to ethics and tax laws.

The scale of the potential ethics violations by Justice Thomas, and the willful pattern of disregard
for ethics laws, exceeds the conduct of other government officials investigated by the
Department of Justice for similar violations. The breadth of the omissions uncovered to date,
and the serious possibility of additional tax fraud and false statement violations by Justice
Thomas and his associates, warrant the appointment of a Special Counsel to investigate this
misconduct. The Senate is not a prosecutorial body, and the Supreme Court has no fact-finding
function of its own, making the executive role all the more important if there is ever to be any
complete determination of the facts.

I. The Evidence of Misconduct by Justice Thomas Warrants Criminal Investigation

Senate investigations and public reporting have uncovered evidence that Justice Thomas likely
violated federal law by accepting lavish gifts from wealthy benefactors and failing to report
them. The full scope of Justice Thomas’s non-disclosures is still unknown, but the evidence
assembled thus far suggests that, since his appointment to the Supreme Court, Justice Thomas
has secretly accepted gifts and income potentially worth millions of dollars.

This conduct likely violates the Ethics in Government Act, which requires government officials,
including Supreme Court justices, to file annual reports disclosing gifts and income accepted
from outside sources.1 It is a crime “to knowingly and willfully . . . fail to file or report” such
information.2 Justice Thomas’s disclosure omissions also implicate federal prohibitions against
making false statements to the government,3 and raise questions about Justice Thomas’s and his
benefactors’ compliance with federal tax laws.4

1
5 U.S.C. §§ 13101-13105.
2
5 U.S.C. § 13106(a)(2).
3
18 U.S.C. § 1001.
4
See infra notes 10, 26 and accompanying text.
 A. Justice Thomas Failed to Report More than $267,000 in Income from Forgiven Debt

Since last year, the Senate Finance Committee and Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal
Courts, Oversight, Agency Action, and Federal Rights have been investigating a loan of more
than $267,000 connected to Justice Thomas’s purchase of a luxury motor coach. On October 25,
2023, the Senate Finance Committee released a memorandum, a copy of which is appended to
this letter, concluding that in November 2008 the provider of the loan, Anthony Welters, ceased
collecting principal or interest on $267,230.00 he loaned to Justice Thomas and his wife for the
purchase of a 1991 Prevost Marathon motor coach.5 Documents obtained by the Senate Finance
Committee indicate that no principal was ever repaid on the loan and that Justice Thomas only
made interest payments on the loan prior to all payments ceasing on the loan. Forgiven or
discharged debt is taxable income, and the Ethics in Government Act requires justices to disclose
any “income from discharge of indebtedness.”6 Justice Thomas did not report any such
forgiveness as income on his financial disclosure report covering the year 2008, or for any other
year.

On December 19, 2023, and again on May 15, 2024, we invited Justice Thomas to address the
evidence obtained by the Finance Committee.7 Those letters offered Justice Thomas an
opportunity to state in plain terms how much in principal and interest on the loan he ever repaid
to Welters. We also offered Justice Thomas an opportunity to state how the loan was forgiven or
discharged. On both occasions, counsel for Justice Thomas provided an uninformative response.
Justice Thomas’s counsel stated that Justice Thomas “made payments to Mr. Welters on a regular
basis until the terms of the agreement were satisfied in full.”8 As we stressed to Justice
Thomas’s counsel, “satisfied” could have any number of meanings in the context of repayment,
forgiveness, or discharge of debt. The Finance Committee has still received no satisfactory
response.

The Ethics in Government Act requires disclosure of any “income from discharge of
indebtedness,”9 and the Tax Code treats discharge of indebtedness as taxable income; when debt
is canceled, forgiven, or discharged for less than the amount owed, the borrower must report that
difference as income on federal tax returns.10 Failure to repay any amount of the principal of the
loan would almost certainly create commensurate taxable income for Justice Thomas. Justice
Thomas failed to clarify whether or why he failed to report hundreds of thousands of dollars in

5
Mem. from Democratic Staff, S. Comm. on Fin., to Chairman Ron Wyden, S. Comm. on Fin., Clarence Thomas
Did Not Repay Entire Principal on $267,230 Loan from Tony Welters, Finance Committee Investigation Reveals;
Failed to Report Forgiven Debt on Ethics Filings, Raising Questions About Tax Compliance (Oct. 25, 2023),
https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/senate_finance_committee_welters_thomas_memo_102523.pdf.
6
26 U.S.C. §§ 61, 108; 5 U.S.C. § 13101(7).
7
Letter from Sen. Ron Wyden & Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse to Elliot S. Berke, Partner, Berke Farah LLC (Dec. 19,
2023), https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/follow_up_thomas_attorney_letter_121923.pdf); Letter from
Sen. Ron Wyden & Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse to Elliot Berke (May 15, 2024),
https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/senators_wyden_whitehouse_letter_to_elliot_berke_inquiring_whet
her_justice_thomas_repaid_for_luxury_motorcoachpdf.pdf.
8
Letter from Elliot Burke to Sen. Ron Wyden & Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (Jan. 19, 2024),
https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/berke_farah_response_letter_to_senators_wyden_and_whitehouse_o
n_justice_thomaspdf.pdf.
9
5 U.S.C. § 13101(7).
10
26 U.S.C. §§ 61, 108.

2
forgiven debt on his federal income tax returns and pay the income taxes owed. We submit that
the facts we have developed, combined with strategically evasive answers, creates predication
for further investigation by relevant authorities.

B. Justice Thomas Has Failed to Report Gifts He Accepted from Wealthy Benefactors and
Associated Companies

Public investigative reporting and information obtained by the Senate Judiciary Committee has
revealed that billionaire Harlan Crow has donated to Justice Thomas numerous gifts over the past
twenty years, almost none of which were disclosed by Justice Thomas as the Ethics in
Government Act requires. These gifts include multiple instances of free private jet travel, yacht
travel, and lodging, as well as gifts of tuition for Justice Thomas’s grandnephew,11 and (through
intermediate entities) real estate transactions, home renovations, and free rent for Justice
Thomas’s mother, all of which Justice Thomas failed to disclose.12

Justice Thomas has accepted a pattern of similar, undisclosed gifts from other wealthy donors as
well, including private jet travel from Paul Anthony Novelly; private jet travel and country club
membership from the late Wayne Huizenga; and private jet travel, luxury sports tickets, and
lodging at a ranch from David Sokol.13 Our current list of publicly reported but not yet disclosed
gifts and income is attached as an appendix to this letter.

The Ethics in Government Act required Justice Thomas to disclose these gifts. The Act requires
disclosure of gifts, outside income, real estate transactions above certain monetary thresholds—
which all of the gifts, outside income, and transactions detailed above appear to satisfy.14 None
of these gifts seems to fall plausibly within the Act’s disclosure exception for “food, lodging, or
entertainment received as personal hospitality.”15 As its plain text shows, the “personal
hospitality” exception has never permitted nondisclosure of gifts of transportation, like private
jet flights.16 Moreover, the “personal hospitality” exception applies only to hospitality “extended
. . . by an individual, not a corporation or organization, at the personal residence of that
individual or the individual’s family or on property or facilities owned by that individual or the

11
Joshua Kaplan et al., Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire, PROPUBLICA (Apr. 6, 2023),
https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow; ; Joshua Kaplan et
al., Clarence Thomas Had a Child in Private School. Harlan Crow Paid the Tuition, PROPUBLICA (May 4, 2023),
https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-private-school-tuition-scotus; Antonio Pequeño IV,
Senate Finds Clarence Thomas Received Three More Undisclosed Trips From GOP Megadonor Harlan Crow,
FORBES (June 13, 2024), https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2024/06/13/senate-finds-clarence-thomas-
received-three-more-undisclosed-trips-from-gop-megadonor-harlan-crow.
12
Justin Elliot et al., Billionaire Harlan Crow Bought Property From Clarence Thomas. The Justice Didn’t Disclose
the Deal, PROPUBLICA (Apr. 13, 2023), https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-real-estate-
scotus.
13
Brett Murphy & Alex Mierjeski, Clarence Thomas’ 38 Vacations: The Other Billionaires Who Have Treated the
Supreme Court Justice to Luxury Travel, PROPUBLICA (Aug. 10, 2023), https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-
thomas-other-billionaires-sokol-huizenga-novelly-supreme-court.
14
5 U.S.C. § 13104(a)(2)(A) (requiring disclosure of gifts other than personal hospitality valued at the greater of
$250 or the minimal value as established by 5 U.S.C. § 7342(a)(5)); 5 U.S.C. § 13104(a)(1)(A) (requiring disclosure
of outside income valued at $200 or greater); 5 U.S.C. § 13104(a)(5) (requiring disclosure of real property
transactions exceeding $1,000).
15
5 U.S.C. § 13104(a)(2)(A).
16
Id.

3
individual’s family,”17 yet many of the gifts discussed above were provided not by individuals
but by corporate entities connected to those individuals.18 As legal guardian, Justice Thomas was
presumably responsible for his grandnephew’s education expenses, making tuition payments
gifts to Justice Thomas himself—a commonsense understanding of federal law confirmed by
legislative and executive branch guidance.19

Justice Thomas has claimed that some omissions were “inadvertent,” and he has amended some
past reports accordingly.20 However, Justice Thomas has not disclosed all of the gifts that have
been uncovered, and there may well be more. His long history of omissions indicates a pattern
of willfulness meriting investigation under the Ethics in Government Act. In 2011, Justice
Thomas admitted to omitting hundreds of thousands of dollars of his spouse’s income from his
disclosures, averring a “misunderstanding of the filing instructions” (despite accurately filing
disclosure forms regarding his spouse’s employment for as many as ten years beginning in
1987).21 Similarly, earlier in his tenure on the Court, Justice Thomas properly reported
transportation, including complimentary private jet travel and gifts to defray tuition expenses like
those he subsequently omitted.22 Justice Thomas’s own past financial disclosure reports,
combined with his later revisions, belie the notion that he was not aware of the simple
requirements he was required to meet. We contend that this pattern of filings, misfilings, and
corrections provides adequate predication for further investigation by relevant authorities.

We note that a similar referral may come your way through the Judicial Conference, which has
an independent obligation to refer to you the question of whether disclosure violations are
“willful,” if it finds reasonable cause to believe violations may have been willful, and which
appears to be presently investigating Justice Thomas’s disclosures.

17
5 U.S.C. § 13101(14).
18
See supra notes 11, 13; Letter from Walter Shaub & Sarah Turberville, Project on Gov. Oversight, to Brian
Boynton, Dep’t of Justice (Apr. 16, 2023), https://www.pogo.org/policy-letters/pogo-calls-for-doj-to-investigate-
clarence-thomas-seek-civil-penalties.
19
Senate Rule XXXV(2)(A) (“A gift to a family member of a Member . . ., or a gift to any other individual based on
that individual’s relationship with the Member . . ., shall be considered a gift to the Member . . . if it is given with
the knowledge and acquiescence of the Member . . . and the Member . . . has reason to believe the gift was given
because of the official position of the Member, officer, or employee.”); House Rule 25, cl. 5(a)(2)(B)(i) (“[A] gift to
a family member or another individual will be deemed to be a gift to the official when two circumstances are
present: The gift was given with the knowledge and acquiescence of the Member or staff person; and [t]he Member
or staff person has . . . reason to believe the gift was given because of his official position with the House.”). 5
C.F.R. § 2365.203(f) (2016) (stating that an indirectly accepted gift includes a gift “[g]iven with the employee’s
knowledge and acquiescence to the employee’s parent, sibling, spouse, child, dependent relative, or a member of the
employee’s household because of that person’s relationship to the employee”).
20
Abbie VanSickle, Justice Thomas Reports Private Trips With Harlan Crow, N.Y. TIMES (Aug. 31, 2023),
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/31/us/thomas-financial-disclosures-scotus.html; Abbie VanSickle, Clarence
Thomas, in Financial Disclosure, Acknowledges 2019 Trips Paid by Harlan Crow, N.Y. TIMES (June 7, 2024),
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/07/us/supreme-court-disclosures-gifts.html.
21
Jennifer Epstein, Thomas revises disclosure forms, POLITICO (Jan. 24, 2011),
https://www.politico.com/story/2011/01/thomas-revises-disclosure-forms-048086.
22
Richard Serrano & David Savage, Justice Thomas Reports Wealth of Gifts, L.A. TIMES (Dec. 31, 2004),
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-dec-31-na-gifts31-story.html; Joshua Kaplan et al., Clarence
Thomas Had a Child in Private School, supra note 11.

4
Separately, payments reportedly facilitated by Leonard Leo, who has been involved in arranging
some of these free gifts for Justice Thomas and others, and is devoted to influencing the Supreme
Court through other means, provide further grounds for investigation.23 Last year, the
Washington Post reported that Leo directed payments of at least $25,000 to a consulting firm run
by Justice Thomas’s spouse, with Leo specifying that the documents related to the payments
should make “[n]o mention” of Mrs. Thomas.24 The furtive nature of the payments raises further
questions about how many such payments were orchestrated, whether legitimate services were
actually rendered, and whether such payments required additional reporting by Justice Thomas.
We have not yet adequately been able to investigate the extent to which any or all these
undisclosed gifts were part of a coordinated gifts program to reward recipient justices.

In addition to possible disclosure violations under the Ethics in Government Act, each of the
undisclosed transactions discussed above implicates federal laws against making false statements
to the government.25 Moreover, these gifts raise the possibility of related tax violations by
Justice Thomas’s benefactors if they failed to report or pay any required gift tax.26 Because
prosecutions have resulted of officials in other branches of government, relevant authorities
should review this conduct in light of that prosecutorial precedent.

C. Justice Thomas’s Potential Misconduct Exceeds Past Examples of Misconduct by Other

Government Officials Investigated by the Department of Justice

Investigation of these matters by the Department of Justice is appropriate and consistent with the
severity of the evidence of misconduct presented here. Indeed, the Department of Justice has
charged other government officials for less serious violations than the evidence suggests Justice
Thomas committed.

For example, in 2016, the Department prosecuted a former Drug Enforcement Agency official
for false statements under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 for failing to disclose gifts of private air travel
received from 2010 through 2014.27 Also in 2016, the Department of Justice charged a
Department of Veterans Affairs official under § 1001 for failing to disclose approximately
$21,000 in gifts consisting in part of airline tickets and resort services.28 In 2010, the
Department of Justice prosecuted a Department of Housing and Urban Development official
under 18 U.S.C. § 1018 for his failure to disclose luxury sports tickets from someone with
business before his agency.29 The officials pleaded guilty and received criminal sentences. The

23
Emma Brown et al., Judicial activist directed fees to Clarence Thomas’s wife, urged ‘no mention of Ginni,’
WASH. POST (May 4, 2023), https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2023/05/04/leonard-leo-clarence-
ginni-thomas-conway/.
24
Id.
25
18 U.S.C. § 1001.
26
See, e.g., Letter from Sen. Ron Wyden to Harlan Crow (Apr. 24, 2023),
https://www.finance.senate.gov/chairmans-news/wyden-letter-to-harlan-crow-seeks-complete-account-of-gifts-to-
justice-clarence-thomas.
27
Press release, Dep’t of Justice, Former DEA Supervisory Agent Pleads Guilty to Federal Charge Involving His
Personal Use of Free Air Travel (May 18, 2016), https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/2019-12/2016-05-18.pdf.
28
Press release, U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Arizona, Former Director of Phoenix VA Hospital Pleads Guilty
(Mar. 2, 2016) https://www.justice.gov/usao-az/pr/former-director-phoenix-va-hospital-pleads-guilty).
29
Mem. from Don Fox, Acting Director, Office of Government Ethics, to Designated Agency Ethics Officials and
Inspectors General. 9 (Nov. 15, 2011),

5
value, scope, and duration of the undisclosed gifts accepted by Justice Thomas dwarf the
undisclosed gifts for which the Department of Justice prosecuted these officials, who entered
pleas of guilty.

II. Appointment of a Special Counsel to Investigate These Extraordinary

Circumstances Would Be in the Public Interest

Appointment of a Special Counsel is justified under Department of Justice regulations. Under

those regulations, the appointment of a Special Counsel is appropriate when “criminal
investigation . . . is warranted”; the “investigation or prosecution . . . by a United States
Attorney’s Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present . . .
extraordinary circumstances”; and “under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to
appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.”30 This matter meets
those standards.

The evidence documented above suggests the strong possibility of multiple federal ethics, tax,
and false statement violations by a Supreme Court justice and associated individuals. When the
Department of Justice has conducted criminal investigations of a high-ranking government
official, in several cases, the Department appointed Special Counsels.31

Since no litigant appears before the Supreme Court more frequently than the United States
government, represented by the Department of Justice,32 the Department may understandably
hesitate to offend a member of that Court. Appointment of a special counsel would ensure
proper, impartial investigation, separate from the Department’s broader litigating interests.

Appointment of a Special Counsel would serve the public interest. The public must have
confidence that the judiciary and the Department of Justice execute their responsibilities fairly,
impartially, and without respect to political expedience or partisan interests. Accordingly, any
investigation by the Department of a sitting judge—especially a member of the highest court—
must be conducted in a manner free of political motive. While we trust that the Department’s
public servants would never succumb to such pressure, appointment of a Special Counsel would
reinforce confidence in the independence, thoroughness, and reliability of any investigation.
These same considerations counsel in favor of appointing a Special Counsel to investigate
potential tax law violations without awaiting an IRS referral.

***

We do not make this request lightly. The evidence assembled thus far plainly suggests that
Justice Thomas has committed numerous willful violations of federal ethics and false-statement
laws and raises significant questions about whether he and his wealthy benefactors have

https://www.oge.gov/web/OGE.nsf/0/C5880F8A6CE5BAE3852585BA005BEC97/$FILE/a20fbf3ea105448a8df164
57fcfcbab51.pdf.
30
21 C.F.R. § 600.1 (2024).
31
See Peter Baker, Presidents and Their Prosecutors, N.Y. TIMES (Jan. 13, 2023),
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/13/us/politics/presidents-prosecutors-special-counsel.html.
32
Margaret Meriwether Cordray & Richard Cordray, The Solicitor General’s Changing Role in Supreme Court
Litigation, 51 B.C. L. REV. 1323, 1338 (2010).

6
complied with their federal tax obligations. Presented with opportunities to resolve questions
about his conduct, Justice Thomas has maintained a suspicious silence.

No government official should be above the law. Supreme Court justices are properly expected
to obey laws designed to prevent conflicts of interest and the appearance of impropriety and to
comply with the federal tax code. We therefore request that you appoint a Special Counsel
authorized to investigate potential criminal violations by Justice Thomas under the disclosure,
false statement, and tax laws; pursue leads of related criminal violations by donors, lenders, and
intermediate corporate entities; and determine whether any such loans and gifts were provided
pursuant to a coordinated enterprise or plan.

We thank you for your attention to these matters.

Sincerely,

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE RON WYDEN

United States Senator United States Senator
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Chairman, Senate Committee on
Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action, Finance
and Federal Rights

Enclosures

7
APPENDIX A
 MEMORANDUM
To: Chairman Ron Wyden, Senate Committee on Finance
From: Finance Committee Democratic Staff
Date: October 25, 2023
Re: Clarence Thomas did not repay entire principal on $267,230 loan from Tony Welters

Executive Summary:
The Democratic staff of the Senate Committee on Finance reviewed loan documentation
indicating that Justice Clarence Thomas received a $267,230.00 loan from Tony Welters, which
Thomas used to purchase a luxury motorcoach. While additional documents pertaining to the
loan agreement may exist, documents reviewed by Democratic staff suggest that Justice Thomas
did not repay a significant portion of the loan principal. In fact, none of the documents reviewed
by Committee staff indicated that Thomas ever made payments to Welters in excess of the
annual interest on the loan.
Forgiveness of the loan results in a taxable event for Justice Thomas. Under tax rules,
forgiveness of the entire principal by Welters requires Justice Thomas to include up to
$267,230.00 in taxable income and report the amount on his tax filings. Justice Thomas did not
disclose this forgiven debt on his ethics filings, raising questions as to whether Thomas properly
reported the associated income on his tax returns.
Background:
On August 5th 2023, reporting from the New York Times revealed the existence of an
undisclosed financial arrangement involving Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and
Anthony Welters. 1 According to these reports, in 1999 Welters personally loaned Justice Thomas
an unspecified amount of money to help finance the purchase of a luxury recreational vehicle,
which he still owns today. Justice Thomas used the proceeds of this loan to buy a Prevost
Marathon motor coach for a price of $267,230.00. Additionally, local department of motor
vehicle records listed Welters as a lienholder on the original title certificate of the vehicle.
These reports raised serious questions regarding the terms of the loan agreement between
Welters and Justice Thomas and the manner in which the debt was resolved. These questions
included the dollar value of the loan, the interest rate charged on the loan, and the amounts of the
loan that were repaid, forgiven or discharged. In response to questions from the New York
Times, Welters stated that the loan was “satisfied” in 2008, but did not address whether it was
repaid.

1
Clarence Thomas’s $267,230 R.V. and the Friend Who Financed It, The New York Times, Aug. 5, 2023 available
online at https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/05/us/clarence-thomas-rv-anthony-welters.html. As noted in the story,
the relationship between Welters and Thomas predates Thomas’s time on the federal bench.

1
New evidence indicates that Justice Thomas failed to repay a significant portion of the
principal of the $267,230.00 loan from Tony Welters
In order to understand the loan arrangement between Welters and Justice Thomas,
Committee staff requested, and Tony Welters voluntarily provided, information about the loan.
Committee staff reviewed several documents made available by Welters’ counsel related to the
1999 loan from Welters to Justice Thomas and obtained the following new information:
1. A Handwritten Note from Justice Thomas on Supreme Court Stationery Dated
December 6, 1999. Committee staff reviewed a handwritten note dated December 6,
1999 from Thomas to Welters, written on the Supreme Court stationery from the
Chambers of Clarence Thomas. The note references a Promissory Note and Security
Agreement, and says the documents should accurately reflect the understanding of
Thomas and Welters. Justice Thomas’s note further states the agreements will be
complied with to the letter.

2. A Promissory Note Dated December 6, 1999. Committee staff reviewed a

Promissory Note (“Note”) dated December 6, 1999. According to the Note, Clarence
Thomas and Virginia Lamp Thomas, together as “Makers,” executed an agreement to
pay Anthony Welters, as “Payee,” the principal sum of $267,230.00. 2 The principal
balance of the Note had an interest rate of 7.5% per annum. Interest payments on the
note were due and payable annually each year on December 31, and the principal and
all accrued unpaid interest was due no later than the maturity date of the Note. The
stated maturity date of the Note was December 31, 2004. The Note included a
referenced Security Agreement of the same date covering a “motor vehicle,” and
characterizes the Note together with the Security Agreement as the “Loan
Documents.”

3. A Security Agreement Dated December 6, 1999. Committee staff reviewed a

Security Agreement (“Security”) dated December 6, 1999 between Clarence and
Virginia L. Thomas, together as “Grantors,” and Anthony Welters as “Grantee.” The
Security describes a loan made by Welters to the Thomases for the original principal
amount of $267,230.00. According to the document, as a condition of the loan by
Welters, the Thomases granted Welters a security interest in a 1991 Prevost by
Marathon, in order to secure the payment of all amounts owed to Welters under the
Promissory Note.

4. Addendum to December 6, 1999 Promissory Note Dated December 31, 2004.

Committee staff reviewed an Addendum to the December 6, 1999 Promissory Note.
The addendum, dated December 31, 2004, extended the maturity date of the
Promissory Note by ten years, from December 31, 2004 to December 31, 2014. This

2
The loan documents were executed jointly by Clarence Thomas and his wife Virginia Lamp Thomas. However, for
simplicity this memo will sometimes refer to the loan agreement as between Clarence Thomas and Anthony
Welters.

2
 addendum was signed by Clarence Thomas and Virginia L. Thomas, together as
“Makers,” and described Anthony Welters as “Payee.” The addendum made clear that
the unpaid principal on the loan continued to bear interest and that annual interest
payments would be due. It also specified that all other provisions of the original loan
agreement remained in force.

5. Bank Check from Clarence Thomas to Anthony Welters, Dated December 21,
2000, for Motorcoach Payment. Committee staff reviewed a check from First Union
National Bank dated December 21, 2000. The check was from Clarence Thomas to
Anthony Welters in the amount of $20,042.23. The check’s memo line stated it was
for a motorcoach payment. According to Committee staff calculations, the annual
interest payment on a $267,230.00 loan at 7.5% interest is $20,042.25.

6. A Handwritten Note from Anthony Welters to Clarence Thomas, Dated

November 22, 2008. Committee staff reviewed a handwritten note dated November
22, 2008 from Anthony Welters to Justice Thomas. Welters’ note states that Thomas
has been paying Welters interest only on Thomas’s bus for many years. 3 Welters’
note indicates that after Thomas’s upcoming payment, Welters would no longer seek
further payments from Justice Thomas on the loan because, according to Welters’
note, Welters believed that Thomas had paid interest greater than the purchase price
of the bus, and that Welters did not feel it was appropriate to continue to accept
payments even though he had the right to them.
Analysis
Based on the documents reviewed by Committee staff, staff confirmed that on or around
December 6, 1999, Anthony Welters loaned Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife Virginia L.
Thomas $267,230.00 for the purchase of a 1991 Prevost Marathon. The loan agreement between
Welters and Thomas consisted of a Promissory Note and Security Agreement, and constituted an
“interest only” loan with an annual interest rate of 7.5%.
In a handwritten note on Supreme Court stationery, Justice Thomas indicated that he
would comply with the terms of the loan agreement to the letter. Thomas made at least one
annual payment to Welters in an amount almost exactly equal to the annual interest due to
Welters. On the original maturity date of the loan agreement, Thomas executed an extension of
the agreement extending the note an additional ten years.
In November 2008, 9 years after the loan agreement was executed, Welters forgave the
balance of the loan to Thomas in recognition of the payments made by Thomas which Welters
characterized as interest only payments that exceeded the amount of the original loan. While
additional documents pertaining to the loan agreement may exist and provide more clarity to the

3
The note states that Thomas had been making payments to Welters for “ten plus” years, however at the time
Welters’ note was written the agreement had only been in place for nine years.

3
agreement, none of the documents reviewed by Committee staff indicated that Thomas ever
made payments to Welters in excess of the annual interest on the loan. 4
Based on the documents reviewed by Committee staff, Anthony Welters forgave a
substantial amount, or even all of the principal balance of his loan to Clarence Thomas,
constituting of the forgiveness of approximately $267,230.00 of debt owed by Justice Thomas.
Tax consequences for Justice Thomas arising from hundreds of thousands of dollars in
forgiven debt
The new evidence obtained by the Committee raises a number of potentially serious tax
questions for Justice Thomas. The revelation that Justice Thomas had up to $267,000 in debt
forgiven and failed to repay the entire principal of the loan would have generated a significant
amount of taxable income for Justice Thomas.
The tax code makes clear that in instances where debt is canceled, forgiven, or discharged
for less than the amount owed, the borrower must report the amount canceled or forgiven as
income for tax purposes. 5, 6 The November 22, 2008 handwritten note from Welters to Justice
Thomas indicated that Welters felt that Justice Thomas had made interest payments over and
above the purchase price of the motorcoach when Welters stopped collecting any further
payments from Justice Thomas.
Justice Thomas did not report the forgiven debt on his 2008 Financial Disclosure Report.
Since the loan agreement with Welters was first reported in August 2023, Justice Thomas has not
provided any information on loan payments made to Welters, or stated whether he properly
reported the income from the forgiven debt on his tax returns.

4
Representatives for Welters also indicated that they were not currently aware of documents indicating whether
Thomas had made payments to Welters in excess of the annual interest payments.
5
26 USC 61 “income from discharge of indebtedness” defined as taxable income; 26 USC 108 “Income from
Discharge of Indebtedness.”
6
In certain cases, a forgiven loan may be recharacterized as a taxable gift; however, documents reviewed by the
Committee indicate that the loan was intended to be established at arm’s length. Under federal tax law and
regulations, bona fide business transfers are presumed not to be taxable gifts, if they are made at arm’s length and
free from donative intent. See Treas. Reg. 25.2512-8.

4
APPENDIX B
Likely Undisclosed Gifts and Income from Harlan Crow and Affiliated Companies

YEAR DESCRIPTION
2003 Yacht trip to Russia and the Baltics
2003 Helicopter ride to Yusupov Palace, St. Petersburg
2006 Tuition for grandnephew at Randolph-Macon Academy
2007 Tuition for grandnephew at Randolph-Macon Academy
2007 Yacht cruise around Greek islands
2008 Tuition for grandnephew at Hidden Lake Academy
2008 Roundtrip flight on private plane from Washington, D.C., to Savannah, GA

2008 Yacht trip between Savannah, GA and Charleston, SC

2009 Tuition for grandnephew at Hidden Lake Academy

2010 Roundtrip flight on private plane from Washington, D.C., to Savannah, GA

2016 Roundtrip private plane flight from Washington, D.C., to New Haven, CT

2017 Roundtrip flight on private plane from Washington, D.C., to Keese Mill, NY

2017 Meals and lodging at Camp Topridge

Flight on private plane from St. Louis, MO, to Kalispell, MT, and return flight
2017
to Dallas, TX
2018 Roundtrip flight on private plane from Washington, D.C., to Dallas, TX

2018 Roundtrip flight on private plane from Washington, D.C., to Dallas, TX

2018 Roundtrip private plane flight from Washington, D.C., to Keese Mill, NY

2018 Meals and lodging at Camp Topridge

2019 Roundtrip flight on private plane from Washington, D.C., to Savannah, GA
2019 Roundtrip flight on private plane to Indonesia, and related yacht travel
2019 Roundtrip flight on private plane to Santa Rosa, CA
2021 Roundtrip flight on private plane from Washington, D.C., to NY

2021 Roundtrip flight on private plane from Washington, D.C., to San Jose, CA

1
 Likely Undisclosed Gifts and Income from Other Donors

YEAR DESCRIPTION DONOR

Flight on private plane from South Wayne Huizenga or an affiliated
2003
Florida to Tampa, FL company

Flights from Washington, D.C., to

2004 Miami Dolphins, Ltd. (Wayne Huizenga)
Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Flights from Washington, D.C., to
2004 Miami Dolphins, Ltd. (Wayne Huizenga)
Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Balance of loan for Prevost Marathon
2008 Anthony Welters
Le Mirage XL RV
Roundtrip flight on plane from
2010 Washington, D.C. to Anthony Welters
Port of Spain, Trinidad
Meals and lodging at ranch outside
2015 David Sokol
Jackson Hole, WY
Flight on private plane from Jackson
2016 Paul Anthony Novelly
Hole to Washington, D.C.

Flight on private plane from Ft.

2018 Paul Anthony Novelly
Lauderdale, FL, to Washington, D.C.
Private plane flight from Washington,
2019 D.C., to NE to WY, to David Sokol or an affiliated company
Washington, D.C.
Meals and lodging at ranch outside
2019 David Sokol
Jackson Hole, WY
2019 Tickets to Nebraska football game David Sokol

2019 Tickets to Nebraska volleyball game David Sokol

Sources

Abbie VanSickle & Steve Eder, Where Clarence Thomas Entered an Elite Circle and Opened a
Door to the Court, N.Y. TIMES (July 9, 2023), https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/09/us/clarence-
thomas-horatio-alger-association.html.

Brett Murphy & Alex Mierjeski, Clarence Thomas’ 38 Vacations: The Other Billionaires Who
Have Treated the Supreme Court Justice to Luxury Travel, PROPUBLICA (Aug. 10, 2023),
https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-other-billionaires-sokol-huizenga-novelly-
supreme-court.

2
Harlan Crow Travel Information, Senate Judiciary Committee,
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2024-06-
13%20REDACTED%20Crow%20Materials%20for%20distribution.pdf.

Jo Becker & Julie Tate, Clarence Thomas’s $267,230 R.V. and the Friend Who Financed It, N.Y.
TIMES (Aug. 5, 2023), https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/05/us/clarence-thomas-rv-anthony-
welters.html.

Joshua Kaplan et al., Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire, PROPUBLICA (Apr. 6, 2023),
https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow.

Joshua Kaplan et al., Clarence Thomas Had a Child in Private School. Harlan Crow Paid the
Tuition, PROPUBLICA (May 4, 2023), https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-
crow-private-school-tuition-scotus.

Joshua Kaplan et al., Clarence Thomas Secretly Participated in Koch Network Donor Events,
PROPUBLICA (Sept. 22, 2023), https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-secretly-
attended-koch-brothers-donor-events-scotus.

Justice Thomas Travel Schedule Jan. 29, 2016, https://fixthecourt.com/wp-

content/uploads/2020/03/CT-photo-gift.png.

Letter from Paul Novelly to Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse and Richard Durbin (Oct. 31, 2023),
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2023-12-19/html/CREC-2023-12-19-pt1-
PgS6043.htm.

Mike McIntire, Friendship of Justice and Magnate Puts Focus on Ethics, N.Y. TIMES (June 18,
2011), https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/us/politics/19thomas.html.

Molly Moorhead, Zephyrhills greets another celebrity: Clarence Thomas, TAMPA BAY TIMES
(May 8, 2003), https://www.tampabay.com/archive/2003/05/08/zephyrhills-greets-another-
celebrity-clarence-thomas/.

United States Marshals Service Travel Document, https://fixthecourt.com/wp-

content/uploads/2023/04/Thomas-private-plane-2.11.16.png.