Clarence Thomas might have recognized law at issue in his real estate deal

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s problems are mounting in the aftermath of yet another ProPublica report detailing his ties to conservative billionaire donor Harlan Crow.

While the outlet’s first report detailed how Thomas might have broken the law by failing to disclose luxury trips Crow paid for, its latest describes actual money exchanging hands in a real estate deal between Thomas and Crow. Failing to disclose that might make a more compelling case that Thomas violated the law.

Perhaps as notable as anything: The potential violation involves a law Thomas was forced to confront during another controversy, a decade ago and just a few years before his real estate deal.

In the case of the luxury trips, Thomas has defended himself by saying he had been advised that they qualified for a “personal hospitality” exemption to disclosure requirements. He also noted that the court’s policymaking body clarified the rules last month to state that the kinds of things Thomas accepted — private jet travel and stays at commercial properties — must be disclosed. The implication is that it wasn’t clear-cut (even as legal experts have said such travel should indeed have been disclosed).

In the case of the real estate sale, though, that’s a more difficult argument to make.

The bare bones: ProPublica reported that, in 2014, Crow purchased the Savannah, Ga., home where Thomas’s mother lived, as well as two nearby lots — all three of which were co-owned by Justice Thomas — for around $133,000. Thomas, again, did not disclose this on his annual report. And unlike last week, when the story about the luxury trips broke, he hasn’t yet tried to explain himself.

The post-Watergate law at issue, the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, seems pretty clear:

The law requires government officials to include in their annual reports “a brief description, the date, and category of value of any purchase, sale or exchange during the preceding calendar year which exceeds $1,000,” including, “in real property.”The only exception is for “property used solely as a personal residence of the reporting individual or the individual’s spouse.” Given this was reportedly Thomas’s mother’s house, that wouldn’t apply.While Supreme Court justices aren’t included in some ethics codes that apply to other judges, this law explicitly applies to a justice. The law lists among those who must file such annual reports “a judicial officer,” which it says “means the Chief Justice of the United States, the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court” and other judges. (Thomas is an associate justice.)

Notably, the law was passed not just relatively soon after Watergate, but also after a Supreme Court scandal that some have likened to Thomas’s situation: the 1969 resignation of Justice Abe Fortas. While Fortas had a series of problems, the straw that broke the camel’s back was a 1969 Life magazine story. That story detailed how Fortas had a previously unknown agreement with a convicted businessman, Louis Wolfson, that paid Fortas $20,000 annually. While the initial agreement predated Wolfson’s 1967 conviction, Fortas reportedly accepted one of the payments in 1968.

Part of the concern with the arrangement was that Wolfson might have entered into it to seek the justice’s assistance with his legal problems before the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward reported years later on a secretly recorded 1970 conversation lending credence to those concerns.

Thomas must have been familiar with the law.

Back in 2011, he updated years of his financial disclosure reports to include employment details for his wife, conservative activist Virginia “Ginni” Thomas. The updates came after the watchdog group Common Cause raised red flags. Thomas said the employment information was “inadvertently omitted due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions.”

The law at issue there? The same section of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 that is now at issue when it comes to the real estate transaction. (It also requires disclosure of the source of any spouse’s income over $1,000, though not the actual amounts.)

Despite Thomas having acknowledged the error and amended his filings, Common Cause wasn’t impressed and suggested it didn’t add up.

“Justice Thomas sits on the highest court of the land, is called upon daily to understand and interpret the most complicated legal issues of our day and makes decisions that affect millions,” Common Cause President Bob Edgar said at the time. “It is hard to see how he could have misunderstood the simple directions of a federal disclosure form.”

Just three years later, Thomas reportedly sold his mother’s home to a major conservative donor and opted not to disclose it.