Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has found himself in the spotlight once again, though this time it has nothing to do with his decisions on the bench. The New York Times published a lengthy article this week that has raised questions about Thomas’s ethical standards and his relationship with an elite nonprofit organization, sparking further divisions in opinions from both the left and the right on what is deemed acceptable behavior for Supreme Court members.

The New York Times frames the issue by stating that Thomas has “entered an elite circle and opened a door to the Court.” The piece focuses on Thomas’s relationship with the Horatio Alger Association, a nonprofit organization that offers scholarships to low-income youth.

According to the association’s website, Thomas is an honorary member of its board of directors. The justice has been a supporting member for 30 years and has made connections with influential individuals within the organization.

According to the New York Times, Thomas may have crossed an ethical boundary in his relations with the group and its members. It was revealed that Thomas allows the nonprofit access to the courtroom every year to hold an annual ceremony for new members. Thomas also received VIP tickets to college and NFL football games, in addition to invites for luxurious retreats at the mansion of wealthy businessman David Sokol in Florida and his ranch in Montana.

The Times highlights that none of these perks were reported in Thomas’s financial disclosures.

Meanwhile, the New York Post editorial board criticized the Times’ reporting, calling it a “hefty hit piece” and “character assassination.” However, the Times did not explicitly claim that Thomas’s personal relationships have influenced any of his decisions on the bench and did not suggest that the justice was breaking any ethical rules by not disclosing information about them.

In terms of the court’s record, despite what is perceived as a 6-3 conservative majority, half of all cases ruled on this year were decided unanimously with a 9-0 vote. Additionally, nine out of 10 cases had a liberal justice voting in the majority.