Clarence Thomas Accidentally Leaks Group Chat to Supreme Court, It’s Just 400 Dick Pics of Himself
WASHINGTON, D.C. – In what legal scholars are already calling the most significant breach of judicial ethics since… well, last week, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has reportedly “accidentally” leaked the contents of a private group chat to the entire court’s internal server. The chat, titled “Originalists Who Can’t Read the Room,” contained exactly 400 images. All of them were unsolicited photographs of Thomas’s own penis.
Sources confirm the leak occurred when Thomas attempted to forward a particularly “originalist” angle of his member—captured in the back of a 1986 Volvo 240—to his group of fellow travelers, but instead blasted it to the shared “SCOTUS_Admin” folder accessible by clerks, janitors, and Chief Justice John Roberts’s long-suffering assistant, Brenda.
“It was a total nightmare,” said a clerk who requested anonymity for fear of being forced to watch C-SPAN for 48 hours straight. “We thought it was another leaked draft opinion on affirmative action. Instead, we got a 400-slide PowerPoint presentation on why Clarence Thomas believes the Second Amendment applies to bedroom activities.”
The chat logs, obtained exclusively by this outlet (and scrubbed from our eyes with bleach), reveal a stunning level of narcissism and anatomical documentary. Timestamps show Thomas sent the first image at 3:17 AM, captioned, “Just woke up thinking about the Commerce Clause. Had to document this. #OriginalIntent.”
The subsequent 399 images, sent over a period of three years, show a disturbing pattern. Each photo is accompanied by a rambling caption linking the photo to a constitutional principle. Highlights include:
- “This is what happens when you strictly interpret the 14th Amendment. No incorporation needed.” (Image of a flaccid penis next to a copy of the Federalist Papers)
- “Griswold v. Connecticut was wrong. The right to privacy doesn’t apply here. #Penumbra” (Image of an erect penis casting a shadow on a gavel)
- “Harlan was right. The Constitution is colorblind. My penis agrees.” (Image of a penis with a small American flag sticker attached)
- “I’m not a monster. I just have a very specific reading of the Necessary and Proper Clause.” (Image of a penis in a miniature powdered wig)
The group chat, which included fellow justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, as well as several conservative think tank operatives and a mysterious user named “@ClarenceThomasRealEstateLLC,” appeared to be a safe space for Thomas to vent his frustrations with the liberal agenda. The responses from Alito were limited to “Based” and “This is why we need to overturn Roe,” while Gorsuch simply sent back a PDF of his own book, A Republic, If You Can Keep It, with a timestamp of 4:15 AM.
“This is a massive breach of decorum,” said a visibly shaken Chief Justice Roberts, who held a press conference while holding a small trash can in front of his face. “We have protocols for this. You’re supposed to send your… ‘dissenting opinions’ to a burner phone, not the court’s shared drive. And for God’s sake, use a different angle. We’re not animals.”
The incident has thrown the Supreme Court into chaos. Liberal justices are reportedly demanding a full investigation, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor releasing a statement that read, in part, “I have seen things I cannot unsee. I have seen the ‘Shadow Docket’ in a way I never anticipated. This is not what I meant when I said we need more transparency.”
Meanwhile, legal experts are struggling to find a precedent. “We’ve had justices fall asleep, we’ve had them write terrible opinions, we’ve had them take bribes from Harlan Crow,” said Harvard Law professor (and noted meme scholar) Sarah Jones. “But we’ve never had a justice accidentally show the entire federal judiciary his entire collection of ‘Harlan’s Crow’ fan art. This is unprecedented in the annals of American jurisprudence.”
The political fallout is already reaching fever pitch. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has called for Thomas’s immediate impeachment, tweeting, “If this was a Democratic appointee, they’d be in Guantanamo. This is a clear abuse of the public trust and a violation of HR policy.” In response, Senator Ted Cruz held a press conference where he praised Thomas’s “fearless defense of originalism” and claimed the leak was a “Deep State psyop” designed to discredit a “true patriot’s magnificent manhood.”
“You think this is a scandal?” Cruz shouted, holding up a printed copy of one of the images (which we will not describe). “This is a testament to the power of the Second Amendment! This man is defending our freedoms from the privacy of his own Volvo! He is a hero!”
At press time, Thomas had not commented, but a source close to him said he was “deeply embarrassed” and had “deleted the entire file, but not before making a backup on a floppy disk labeled ‘My Precious.’” The FBI has opened a preliminary inquiry, which is expected to conclude that no laws were broken, as Thomas technically owns the images, and the court’s server is technically part of the federal government, and the federal government technically can’t regulate his speech.
In a final twist, the chat logs also revealed that Thomas had been planning a new opinion on a major reproductive rights case, in which he argued that “the government has a compelling interest in my ability to send these images without consent.” The vote is expected to be 6-3.
Final Thoughts
Having covered the Supreme Court for decades, it’s impossible to ignore how Justice Clarence Thomas has become both a towering originalist and a deeply controversial figure, whose personal journey from poverty to power has shaped a judicial philosophy that often seems indifferent to the institutional optics of ethics and recusal. While his legal output—particularly on the Second Amendment and race-conscious policies—has undeniably shifted American law, the growing shadow of undisclosed gifts and partisan connections risks undermining the very legitimacy he claims to defend through strict constitutional interpretation. Ultimately, Thomas will be remembered as a jurist of profound intellectual consistency, but one whose legacy is permanently entangled with the question of whether a justice can truly stand apart from the political currents he helps steer.