Has Clarence Thomas broken the law?

Back in 2004 the LA Times reported that Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas had been accepting lavish vacations for years from his billionaire "dear friend" Harlan Crow. These vacations seemingly stopped after that, but a few days ago we learned that, in fact, Thomas had merely stopped disclosing them.

This was all "personal hospitality," which Thomas insists is entirely legal and fine. Maybe so.

But it turns out Thomas also accepted free rides on Crow's private jet and didn't disclose those either. That's rather more of a problem, no?

Finally, today, another shoe dropped. ProPublica reports that a few years ago Crow bought some of Thomas's property in Savannah at what looks to be a considerably inflated price. One of the properties is the house Thomas's mother lives in. Crow upgraded it significantly; tore down the annoying party house next door; and doesn't appear to be charging Thomas's mother any rent. Thomas disclosed none of this.

Who knows? Maybe there are innocent explanations for Thomas's silence. But I doubt it. It has all the appearance of plain old lawbreaking. Thomas was required to disclose all this but instead chose to keep it hidden. Why? And what does the Supreme Court intend to do about it?