Thomas’ full statement said:

Harlan and Cathy Crow are among our dearest friends, and we have been friends for over twenty-five years. As friends do, we have joined them on a number of family trips during the more than quarter century we have known them. Early in my tenure at the Court, I sought guidance from my colleagues and others in the judiciary, and was advised that this sort of personal hospitality from a close personal friend, who did not have business before the Court, was not reportable. I have endeavored to follow that counsel throughout my tenure, and have always sought to comply with the disclosure guidelines. These guidelines are now being changed, as the committee of the Judicial Conference responsible for financial disclosure for the entire federal judiciary just this past month announced new guidance. And, it is, of course, my intent to follow this guidance in the future.

The Associated Press, citing a judiciary policy guide, partially backed up Thomas’ assertion, noting that food, lodging, or entertainment received as “personal hospitality of any individual” does not need to be reported if it is at the individual’s residence. AP noted that the guidelines do not exempt “transportation that substitutes for commercial transportation.”

[I think there’s plenty of room for debate around SCOTUS disclosure and reporting requirements. I also think that ProPublica raised that question dishonestly by insinuating Thomas as corrupt without being able to name a single case that Crow could have influenced, let alone any evidence of such influence. My longer thoughts are here. — Ed]