In a recent segment, Oliver made headlines by offering U.S.Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas $1 million per year to resign from the nation’s highest court.

This unprecedented proposal, coupled with a luxury motor coach valued at $2.4 million, was presented as a response to ongoing ethical concerns surrounding Thomas’s tenure.

During the February 18, 2024 episode of Last Week Tonight, Oliver addressed the public scrutiny Justice Thomas had faced due to undisclosed lavish gifts from political benefactors.

These included private jet travel, real estate, and tuition payments for his relatives.

Oliver highlighted that four of Thomas’s major benefactors had not become friends until after his appointment to the Supreme Court, suggesting a potential conflict of interest.

To conclude the segment, Oliver extended a formal offer to Justice Thomas:“We are prepared to offer you $1 million a year, for the rest of your life, if you simply agree to leave the Supreme Court immediately, and never come back. It is that simple. Just sign this contract, resign, and the money is all yours. This is not a joke.”

Oliver further sweetened the deal with a luxury motor coach: “Since your favorite mode of travel might be in need of an upgrade, we are excited to offer you this brand new top-of-the-line Marathon motor coach. It’s worth $2.4 million and comes with a full bedroom, one and a half baths, a fireplace, four TVs, a washer-dryer, and a residential-size fridge.”

He emphasized that this offer was personal and not funded by HBO, stating: “I am personally on the hook. You can make me really regret this. I could be doing stand-up tours to pay for your retirement for years.”

The offer quickly garnered widespread attention. While some viewed it as a humorous critique of the Supreme Court’s lack of ethical oversight, others questioned its legality.

Legal experts noted that while the proposal was unconventional, it did not appear to violate federal bribery statutes, as there was no indication of corrupt intent or an attempt to influence official actions.

However, the incident sparked a broader conversation about the need for increased transparency and accountability within the judiciary.

Critics argued that the Supreme Court’s lifetime appointments and limited ethical guidelines make it susceptible to potential conflicts of interest.

Oliver’s satirical offer underscored serious concerns about judicial ethics and the influence of external factors on Supreme Court decisions.

By juxtaposing humor with a pointed critique, Oliver highlighted the necessity for reforms to ensure the integrity and impartiality of the nation’s highest court.