WASHINGTON — A Texas Republican donor paid for two years of private school tuition for Judge Clarence Thomas’ second cousin, a gift the Justice Department did not disclose, a friend of the Judge confirmed in a statement Thursday.

Confirmation added details a report on Thursday by ProPublicawho last month documented how Justice had received Thomas gifts of luxury travel from the billionaire donor, Harlan Crow. The revelations, including the sale of the home of Justice Thomas’s mother to Mr Crow, have raised questions about the ethical practices of the judiciary.

In his statement, Mark Paoletta, Judge Thomas’ friend and a former Trump administration official, argued that the Justice Department was under no obligation to report tuition fees. He pointed to part of a law from 1978 that says judges must disclose gifts to dependent children, which are defined as “a son, daughter, stepson, or stepdaughter.” Mr. Paoletta emphasized that a second cousin would not qualify under that standard.

“This evil story demonstrates nothing but the fact that the Thomases and the Crows are kind, generous and loving people who tried to help this young man,” Paoletta wrote.

But ethics experts rejected that argument, saying Mr. Crow’s gift was to Judge Thomas himself, not second cousin, so it was clearly reportable. As the child’s legal guardian, Judge Thomas had taken responsibility for his education, enrolling him in a private school and otherwise paying tuition.

“There’s no ambiguity here,” said Kathleen Clark, an ethics law expert at Washington University in St. Louis.

“He paid the tuition fees, which was a gift to Thomas because it financially helped Thomas fulfill his responsibility as a guardian,” she added.

Richard W. Painter, a professor at the University of Minnesota and the chief ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration, agreed.

“I believe Judge Thomas had legal custody, and they have not contested that,” Mr Painter said. “It was his privilege to send the kid to a private school, but he had to pay for it. That was his fault, like a utility bill or food.”

Stephen Gillers, a professor of legal ethics at New York University, agreed, saying, “It should have been reported.” He also said the revelation underscored the need for Congress to tighten the rules.

Mr Paoletta’s “legalistic parsing of language to prevent disclosure of a substantial gift” showed that ethical rules “seriously need revision to remove their porosity,” he said. “They don’t achieve the transparency the public deserves.”

The Supreme Court press office did not respond to a request for comment.

A spokesman for Mr Crow’s holding company did not respond to an email request for comment. But his office told ProPublica that neither Judge Thomas nor his wife, Virginia Thomas, had asked Mr. Crow to pay the tuition for their second cousin, Mark Martin.

The revelation is one in a rapidly expanding series that raises questions about Judge Thomas’s ethical practices.

Thursday late, That reports the Washington Post arranged by Leonard A. Leo, an activist who has pushed for conservative judges to be appointed Ms. Thomas’s name should not appear on the paperwork, as she received tens of thousands of dollars in consulting fees in 2011 and 2012. The nonprofit that instead appeared on the paperwork, the Judicial Education Project, filed a court briefing in a major case before the judges around the same time.

The recent revelations prompted lawmakers to propose a law that would impose a stricter code of ethics on the Supreme Court, and the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the matter this week.

Judge Thomas became Mark Martin’s legal guardian in the late 1990s. Notably, the Justice Department had previously accepted a $5,000 gift from the owner of a pest control company to help cover the costs of his second cousin’s education. In 2002 he reported it on a financial reporting form as “educational gift to Mark Martin.”

Last month, ethics experts, including Mr Painter, signed a complaint to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and to the Justice Department for Judge Thomas’s failure to disclose lavish travel and vacations with Mr. Crow.

The complaint, which was organized by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, noted that the Ethics in Government Act authorized the Justice Department to bring civil proceedings against anyone who “knowingly and intentionally fails to should or report that such person is required to report.” Any violation can result in a fine of up to $50,000 per violation.

There is some ambiguity about whether travel and stays at resorts with friends should be made public before March, when the Judicial Conference of the United States, the governing body for the federal courts, explicitly required personalized hospitality, such as private jet travel and stays in hotels, resorts or hunting lodges.

In a statement following last month’s revelations, Judge Thomas said “colleagues and others in the judiciary” had advised him not to report trips with Mr Crow, whom he characterized as a close friend who had no business in court. He also indicated that he would make such disclosures in the future, in line with the recent review or clarification.

Enforcement measures for non-compliance with the disclosure law have another limitation: there is one in general a four-year statute of limitations for civil actions under federal law.

Tuition fees fall outside that window. In his statement, Mr. Paoletta that Mr. Crow paid Mark Martin’s tuition at Randolph-Macon Academy in Virginia for the 2006-2007 academic year and Hidden Lake Academy, a private school in Georgia, for the following year.

ProPublica nodded to Judge Thomas’s friendship with Mr. Paoletta when describing his relationship with Mr. Crow. In one articleshowed ProPublica a painting hanging at Mr. Crow’s private resort in the Adirondack Mountains showing Judge Thomas and Mr. Crow smoking cigars alongside Mr. Paoletta and two other conservative lawyers.