The Court Was Built for This Moment
The Quiet Coup - Part 2 of a 3-part series
One man. Forty years. $1.6 billion in dark money. Here’s how the Supreme Court was assembled -- and why the ethics crisis around Clarence Thomas is worse than you probably know.
A few days ago, I told you what the Supreme Court has done - the rulings, the shadow docket, the systematic dismantling of the independent regulators who were supposed to stand between corporate power and your family’s safety. I told you about Project 2025 and the blueprint that Vought and Miller and the rest of them wrote while the country wasn’t paying attention.
This week I want to go back further. Because the question I keep getting - in the comments, in my inbox, from people I know in real life - is some version of: How did we end up with this Court?
It’s the right question. And the answer is more deliberate, more documented, and more disturbing than most people realize. This wasn’t luck. This wasn’t the natural drift of American politics. This was a project - a specific, funded, forty-year project -and it has a name, a paper trail, and a face.
It Started in a Reagan-Era Conference Room
The unitary executive theory - the doctrine that gives the president total control over the entire executive branch - is not an ancient constitutional principle that scholars rediscovered. It was invented in 1981, by lawyers in the Reagan administration who needed a constitutional argument that would expand presidential power in the directions the conservative movement wanted it expanded. They needed the argument first, and then they built the legal case for it afterward. 1
Edwin Meese, Reagan’s Attorney General, turned the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel into a workshop for this new doctrine. They wrote the briefs. They built the intellectual scaffolding. And then they founded an organization to train the next generation of lawyers in it.
That organization launched in 1982, at Yale Law School and the University of Chicago. You know it as the Federalist Society. 2
This matters because the theory was emphatically rejected - even by conservative justices -- as recently as 1988. Chief Justice Rehnquist, himself a conservative, wrote the majority opinion in Morrison v. Olson upholding independent agency protections. Only Justice Scalia dissented, calling for a more powerful presidency. The current Court has spent the last several years turning Scalia’s lonely dissent into the law of the land.3
The Man Who Ran the Pipeline
The Federalist Society has been called the single most influential advocacy organization in Washington. That is probably an understatement. But to understand how it became what it is, you have to understand one man who has spent his career at its center: Leonard Leo.
Leo joined the Federalist Society in 1991 and spent the next three decades building what scholars now call a judicial pipeline - a system for identifying conservative law students, placing them in prestigious clerkships, moving them into government positions, vetting them for judgeships, and funding the confirmation battles to get them onto the bench. All the way up to the Supreme Court.4
The results are not subtle. Leo played a key role in the nominations of Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.5 That is six of the nine current justices. One man shaped the nominations of six Supreme Court justices across multiple presidencies. A 2023 study found that a nominee’s affiliation with the Federalist Society increased the probability of Senate confirmation by around 20 percent.6
“A federal court system dominated by conservative judges who believe the Constitution must be interpreted literally.”
-- Leonard Leo, describing his life’s goal, as reported by the American Constitution Society 7
Notice what that goal is not. It is not: a fair court. It is not: a court that reflects the range of American legal thought. It is a court that thinks in a specific way - the way Leo and his network trained it to think before those justices ever put on a robe.
And the money behind this operation is staggering. In 2022, Leo secured what is believed to be the largest political donation in American history: a $1.6 billion gift to his conservative legal network from manufacturing magnate Barre Seid. 8 He also sits at the center of a web of dark money organizations totaling nearly $250 million -groups with names that fund judicial confirmation campaigns, attack nominees they oppose, and promote the ones they want.
And Leo’s Teneo Network - one arm of this operation - sat on the advisory board of Project 2025. 9 The man who built the Court also helped build the blueprint the Court is now implementing. If that feels like the same people showing up everywhere you look, that’s because it is.
Now About Clarence Thomas
I want to be precise here, because the facts are damning enough without any embellishment.
For more than two decades, Justice Clarence Thomas accepted luxury travel from Harlan Crow, a Dallas real estate billionaire and major Republican donor, without disclosing any of it. Vacations on Crow’s 162-foot private superyacht. Flights on Crow’s private jet. Weeks every summer at Crow’s private resort in the Adirondacks. A real estate transaction in which Crow purchased properties owned by Thomas and his family in Savannah, Georgia, including the house where Thomas’s elderly mother lives, rent-free, to this day. 10
None of this appeared on Thomas’s financial disclosures. Federal law, passed after Watergate, specifically to prevent this kind of thing, requires justices to disclose most gifts. Ethics experts say his failure to report the flights and yacht trips violates that law. Members of Congress are prohibited from accepting gifts worth more than $50. Thomas accepted gifts worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, year after year, from a man whose political network brought cases before the Supreme Court.
ProPublica’s ongoing investigation has now documented at least 38 destination vacations and 26 private jet flights Thomas received from multiple billionaires - not just Crow. 11 Thomas eventually acknowledged two of the trips were inadvertently omitted from his filings. He has not acknowledged the rest. 12
What Harlan Crow believes
Crow is not a casual donor. He has given more than $10 million in publicly disclosed political donations, and unknown additional amounts to groups not required to reveal their donors. He is a committed supporter of the conservative legal movement - the same movement that produced the Federalist Society, Project 2025, and the unitary executive theory. He has funded causes that have come before the Court. And Thomas has never recused himself from a single case that touched on Crow’s interests or the broader conservative legal agenda.
Thomas also has a documented relationship with the Koch Brothers, developed at the Bohemian Grove - a secretive all-male retreat in Northern California. He attended at least two Koch donor summits, functioning as a fundraising draw for a network that was simultaneously bringing cases before his Court. 13
And then there is Ginni Thomas. His wife was actively involved in efforts to overturn the 2020 election - texting Trump’s Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to stand firm and urging the White House to follow Sidney Powell’s conspiracy theories. The Senate Judiciary Committee’s December 2024 investigative report concluded that her activities created a direct and unaddressed conflict of interest with cases her husband was ruling on. 14
Thomas did not recuse himself from a single January 6-related case. Not one.
Why Can’t He Be Forced to Recuse?
This is the question that makes people’s heads explode, and reasonably so. The answer is architectural: there is no enforcement mechanism. A Supreme Court justice’s recusal decision is entirely self-determined. It cannot be appealed. There is no body that can overrule it.
The Court adopted a voluntary code of ethics in 2023 under intense public pressure. But voluntary is doing enormous work in that sentence - it has no teeth. A December 2024 report from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse found that the Supreme Court is the only high court in the country - among all fifty states - with no enforcement mechanism for ethics violations whatsoever. 15
The Senate Judiciary Committee investigated. They issued subpoenas. They published a 294-page report documenting the gifts, the trips, the conflicts, the flags at Alito’s houses. Republicans on the committee expressed no concerns. The report sits there, detailed and damning, with no enforcement mechanism attached to it.
This is by design. Not malicious design, but the design of people who assumed that those who reached the Supreme Court would be too committed to institutional integrity to behave this way. That assumption, like Madison’s assumption about Congress, has not held.
What This All Means Together
Let me draw the full picture, because when you see it assembled it is more clarifying than any individual piece of it.
The conservative legal movement invented a doctrine in 1981 to expand presidential power. It founded an organization in 1982 to train lawyers in that doctrine and pipeline them toward the bench. Over forty years, it raised hundreds of millions - then billions - in dark money to fund confirmation battles and attack nominees it opposed. It placed six justices on the Supreme Court, all shaped by the same ideological project. At least one of those justices accepted gifts worth hundreds of thousands of dollars from donors whose movement he now serves from the bench, disclosed none of it, and refused to recuse himself from the cases that mattered most.
And then that same network wrote Project 2025. And that same Court is implementing it.
This is not a conspiracy theory. Every piece of what I’ve just described is documented: In ProPublica’s reporting, in the Senate Judiciary Committee’s own investigative record, in Federalist Society membership rolls, in FEC filings, in Leo’s own public statements about his goals. The paper trail exists. The money trail exists. The through-line is not hidden.
What is hard - what I find genuinely difficult - is sitting with what it means that a democracy allowed this to happen in plain sight. That the checks failed not because they were secretly disabled, but because the people responsible for them looked away, or calculated that looking away served their interests, or simply couldn’t imagine that anyone would push this far.
I’ve been a mad mother writing about this for eighteen months. I am more convinced now than I was at the beginning that the only force capable of reversing any of it is an informed, organized, relentless citizenry that refuses to treat this as normal.
So: don’t treat it as normal.
Keep reading. Keep sharing. Keep talking to people who’ve tuned out. The Court was built over forty years. Rebuilding the guardrails will take time too. But it starts with enough people understanding exactly what happened, and deciding they are not willing to accept it.
I’m not. And I don’t think you are either.
SOURCES