Clarence Thomas (Supreme Court)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Clarence Thomas
Image of Clarence Thomas

Nonpartisan

Supreme Court of the United States
Tenure

1991 - Present

Years in position

32

Prior offices
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Successor: Judith Rogers

Education

Bachelor's

College of the Holy Cross, 1971

Law

Yale Law School, 1974

Personal
Birthplace
Savannah, Ga.


Clarence Thomas is an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He was nominated by President George H.W. Bush (R) to fill the seat left vacant by Thurgood Marshall and was sworn in on October 23, 1991, becoming the second black justice to sit on the Court in U.S. history.

Thomas began his legal career as an assistant attorney general of Missouri. He worked as a legislative assistant to Sen. John Danforth (R) before being appointed assistant secretary for civil rights in the U.S. Department of Education by President Ronald Reagan (R).[1] He was later appointed chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, where he stayed for eight years until Bush nominated him to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 1990.

Thomas served on the District of Columbia court from 1990 to 1991, when he joined the Supreme Court.

Thomas’ notable opinions include the majority opinions in the death penalty case Kansas v. Marsh and religious speech case Good News Club v. Milford Central School.

Professional career

Early life and education

Thomas attended high school in Savannah, Georgia, where he was an honors student. Raised Roman Catholic, Justice Thomas considered entering the priesthood at the age of 16 and attended St. John Vianney's Minor Seminary (Savannah) on the Isle of Hope. At a nun's suggestion, Thomas attended the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts. At Holy Cross, Thomas helped found the Black Student Union and graduated in 1971 with a B.A., cum laude, in English literature. Justice Thomas then attended Yale Law School, where he earned his J.D. in 1974.[1][3]

Approach to the law

Thomas is considered a judicial conservative adhering to the principle of originalism.[4] Nina Totenberg of NPR called Thomas the "Supreme Court's Conservative Beacon" in July 2019.[5] Oyez, a law project created by Cornell’s Legal Information Institute, Justia, and Chicago-Kent College of Law, said in 2019 that Thomas "has shown his opinions to lean farther right than any other justice on the bench today."[1]

Thomas is known to rarely ask questions during oral arguments. In March 2019, Thomas asked two questions during arguments for Flowers v. Mississippi. CBS noted that it was the first time since 2016 and only the third time since 2006 that Thomas had spoken during an oral argument.[6]

Thomas is also known to write more concurring opinions or dissents than other justices on the court. The Washington Times wrote in 2016 that Thomas did so to lay the foundation for future rulings, saying the justice was "patiently planting seeds that, though they had no immediate impact, may eventually flower by the strength of their reason."[7]

Martin-Quinn score

Thomas' Martin-Quinn score following the 2022-2023 term was 2.36, making him the second most conservative justice on the court at that time. Martin-Quinn scores were developed by political scientists Andrew Martin and Kevin Quinn from the University of Michigan, and measure the justices of the Supreme Court along an ideological continuum. The further from zero on the scale, the more conservative (>0) or liberal (<0) the justice. The chart below details every justice's Martin-Quinn score for the 2022-2023 term.

Video discussion

Thomas spoke at the Library of Congress in February 2018 discussing his memoir, the confirmation process, being on the court as an introvert, and his favorite and least favorite things about serving on the court. The video of that event is embedded below.

Thomas spoke at the Federalist Society's 2013 National Lawyers Convention Annual Dinner discussing his upbringing, religion, and originalism. The video of that event is embedded below.

Judicial nominations and appointments

United States Supreme Court (1991 - present)

Nomination Tracker
Fedbadgesmall.png
Nominee Information
Name: Clarence Thomas
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Progress
Confirmed 99 days after nomination.
ApprovedANominated: July 8, 1991
ApprovedAABA Rating: Unanimously Qualified
Questionnaire:
ApprovedAHearing: September 10-20, 1991; October 11-13, 1991
Hearing Transcript: Hearing Transcript
QFRs: (Hover over QFRs to read more)
ApprovedAReported: October 1, 1991 
ApprovedAConfirmed: October 15, 1991
ApprovedAVote: 52-48

On July 1, 1991, President George H. W. Bush nominated Thomas to replace Thurgood Marshall. President Bush said that Thomas was the "best qualified [nominee] at this time." He received a unanimous qualified rating from the American Bar Association.[8][9]

Thomas' formal Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings started on September 10, 1991, and ended on October 13, 1991. They occurred over 12 meetings of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The committee sent Thomas on without recommendation to the full U.S. Senate on September 27, 1991, as they voted 7-7. On October 6, 1991, the day before the full U.S. Senate was set to vote on Thomas' nomination, Anita Hill, a former colleague of Thomas, came forward with allegations of sexual harassment by the nominee.[10][11]

After Thomas was questioned about the Hill allegations, his nomination returned to the U.S. Senate, where he was confirmed with a 52-48 vote on October 15, 1991, the narrowest margin for approval in more than a century. The final floor vote was mostly along party lines; 41 Republicans and 11 Democrats voted to confirm while 46 Democrats and two Republicans voted to reject the nomination. On October 23, 1991, Thomas took his seat as the 106th associate justice of the Supreme Court.[12][13]

District of Columbia Court of Appeals (1990-1991)

In 1990, President George H.W. Bush appointed Thomas to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Thomas served on the court for one year until he was elevated to the Supreme Court of the United States.[14]

Supreme Court statistics

Opinions by year

Below is a table of the number of opinions, concurrences and dissents that Thomas has issued since joining the Supreme Court, according to the data on Cornell University’s Legal Information Institute and the website SCOTUSblog. This information is updated annually at the end of each term.[15][16][17][18] Information for October term 2022-2023 is from a dataset provided by Dr. Adam Feldman, author of Empirical SCOTUS. Data for the 2022-2023 term does not include concurrences and dissents in part.

Opinions written by year, Clarence Thomas
2021-2022 2022-2023
Opinions 7 6
Concurrences 7 8
Dissents 8 8
Totals 22 22




Justice agreement

In the 2022-2023 term, Thomas had the highest agreement rate with Samuel Alito.[19] This does not include agreements in part. Thomas had the lowest agreement rate with Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. In the 2021-2022 term, Thomas agreed in judgment the most often with Samuel Alito. He had the lowest agreement rate with Sonia Sotomayor.[20]

The table below highlights Thomas' agreement rate with each justice on the court during that term.[21][22]


Clarence Thomas agreement rates by term, 2017 - Present
Justice 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023
John Roberts 79% 76% 72% 75% 79% 75%
Anthony Kennedy 83% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Ruth Bader Ginsburg 55% 50% 49% N/A N/A N/A
Stephen Breyer 55% 51% 52% 63% 48% N/A
Samuel Alito 93% 85% 92% 82% 90% 85%
Sonia Sotomayor 51% 50% 44% 55% 40% 65%
Elena Kagan 59% 60% 50% 67% 49% 64%
Neil Gorsuch 81% 81% 80% 88% 78% 76%
Brett Kavanaugh N/A 80% 78% 78% 79% 73%
Amy Coney Barrett N/A N/A N/A 85% 87% 82%
Ketanji Brown Jackson N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 64%

Frequency in majority

In the 2022-2023 term, Thomas was in the majority in 76 percent of decisions. Thomas was in the majority less often than the other eight justices.[19] In the 2021-2022 term, Thomas was in the majority in 80 percent of decisions, more than three of the other justices. Since the 2011-2012 term, Thomas has been in the majority 80 percent of the time or more six times. Across those terms, he has been in the majority on average in 78 percent of all cases.[18][23][24][25]

Noteworthy cases

See also: Noteworthy cases heard by current justices on the U.S. Supreme Court

The noteworthy cases listed in this section include any case where the justice authored a 5-4 majority opinion or an 8-1 dissent. Other cases may be included in this section if they set or overturn an established legal precedent, are a major point of discussion in an election campaign, receive substantial media attention related to the justice's ruling, or based on our editorial judgment that the case is noteworthy. For more on how we decide which cases are noteworthy, click here.


Since he joined the court through the 2022-2023 term, Thomas authored the majority opinion in a 5-4 decision 40 times and authored a dissent in an 8-1 decision 35 times. The table below details these cases by year.[26]

Clarence Thomas noteworthy cases
Year 5-4 majority opinion 8-1 dissenting opinion
Total 40 35
2022-2023 0 2
2021-2022 0 3
2020-2021 0 3
2019-2020 0 2
2018-2019 4 1
2017-2018 3 1
2016-2017 1 0
2015-2016 0 0
2014-2015 0 3
2013-2014 1 0
2012-2013 2 0
2011-2012 0 1
2010-2011 4 0
2009-2010 1 1
2008-2009 3 3
2007-2008 1 3
2006-2007 4 2
2005-2006 1 0
2004-2005 1 1
2003-2004 1 2
2002-2003 0 2
2001-2002 3 0
2000-2001 1 0
1999-2000 3 0
1998-1999 1 1
1997-1998 3 0
1996-1997 1 0
1995-1996 0 1
1994-1995 0 2
1993-1994 0 0
1992-1993 1 0
1991-1992 0 1

U.S. Supreme Court noteworthy opinions

No right to abortion under the U.S. Constitution (2022)

See also: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

Thomas joined the 6-3 majority and authored a concurring opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, holding that the U.S. Constitution did not provide a right to abortion. Associate Justice Samuel Alito authored the majority opinion, which was also joined by Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Chief Justice John Roberts joined with the majority to uphold Mississippi's abortion law but not to overturn Roe and Casey. Alito wrote:

“ We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The right to abortion does not fall within this category.[27]

”
—Justice Alito

In his concurring opinion, Thomas wrote:

“ For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents. After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated. For example, we could consider whether any of the rights announced in this Court’s substantive due process cases are “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. To answer that question, we would need to decide important antecedent questions, including whether the Privileges or Immunities Clause protects any rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution and, if so, how to identify those rights. That said, even if the Clause does protect unenumerated rights, the Court conclusively demonstrates that abortion is not one of them under any plausible interpretive approach.[27] ”
—Justice Thomas

Supervised release (2018)

See also: Mont v. United States

Thomas authored a 5-4 majority opinion in this case holding that Mont's supervised release was tolled under 18 U.S.C. §3624(e), which says a "term of supervised release does not run during any period in which the person is imprisoned in connection with a conviction for a . . . crime unless the imprisonment is for a period of less than 30 consecutive days." Thomas was joined in the majority by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Ginsburg, Alito, and Kavanaugh. Thomas wrote:[28]

“ This case requires the Court to decide whether a convicted criminal’s period of supervised release is tolled—in effect, paused—during his pretrial detention for a new criminal offense. ... Given the text and statutory context of §3624(e), we conclude that if the court’s later imposed sentence credits the period of pretrial detention as time served for the new offense, then the pretrial detention also tolls the supervised-release period. [27] ”

Armed Career Criminal Act (2018)

See also: Stokeling v. United States

Thomas authored a 5-4 majority opinion in this case holding that the Armed Career Criminal Act's (ACCA) "elements clause encompasses a robbery offense that requires the defendant to overcome the victim’s resistance." Thomas was joined in the majority by Justices Breyer, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Thomas wrote:[29]

“ 'Physical force,' or 'force capable of causing physical pain or injury,' Johnson, 559 U. S., at 140, includes the amount of force necessary to overcome a victim’s resistance. Robbery under Florida law corresponds to that level of force and therefore qualifies as a 'violent felony' under ACCA’s elements clause. For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Eleventh Circuit.[27] ”

Nevada v. Hall overturned (2018)

See also: Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt

Thomas authored a 5-4 majority opinion in this case that overturned Nevada V. Hall. Nevada (1979) ruled that states did not have sovereign immunity in one another's courts. Thomas was joined in the majority by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Thomas wrote:[31]

“ Nevada v. Hall is contrary to our constitutional design and the understanding of sovereign immunity shared by the States that ratified the Constitution. Stare decisis does not compel continued adherence to this erroneous precedent. We therefore overrule Hall and hold that

States retain their sovereign immunity from private suits brought in the courts of other States.[27]

”

Class action lawsuits (2018)

See also: Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. v. Jackson

Thomas authored a 5-4 majority opinion in this case holding that "Home Depot could not remove the class-action claim filed against it" because provisions in 28 U.S. Code §1441(a) and in the CAFA do not permit "removal by a third-party counterclaim defendant." Thomas was joined in the majority by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Thomas wrote:[32]

“ In this case, we address whether either provision allows a third-party counterclaim defendant—that is, a party brought into a lawsuit through a counterclaim filed by the original defendant—to remove the counterclaim filed against it. Because in the context of these removal provisions the term "defendant" refers only to the party sued by the original plaintiff, we conclude that neither provision allows such a third party to remove. [27] ”

Kansas death sentence upheld (2006)
See also: United States Supreme Court (Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163 (2006))

Justice Thomas was the author of the majority opinion in the case of Kansas v. Marsh. The case came before the Supreme Court of the United States after the Kansas Supreme Court overturned a sentence by a lower state court that found that the equal balance of mitigating factors and aggravating factors should result in the death penalty, which was in accordance with Kansas law. Justice Thomas and the majority agreed with the lower court that the sentencing was carried out in accordance with the Kansas Constitution. He wrote:

“ Our precedents do not prohibit the States from authorizing the death penalty, even in our imperfect system. And those precedents do not empower this Court to chip away at the States' prerogative to do so on the grounds the dissent invokes today.[33][27] ”

School facilities' ban on religious organization held unconstitutional (2001)
See also: United States Supreme Court (Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U.S. 98 (2001))

Consistent with the laws of New York, Milford Central School authorized district residents to use its facilities for after-school activities under its community use policy. Two district residents, Stephen and Darleen Fournier, sought approval to use school facilities for a children's Christian organization called the Good News Club. The school denied the Fourniers' request. The school claimed that the organization's proposed activities, which included prayer, Bible study, and singing songs, constituted a practice of religious worship in violation of the school's community use policy. The club filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging that the denial of the club's application violated its rights of free speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. A federal district court awarded summary judgment to the school, holding that "because the school had not allowed other groups providing religious instruction to use its limited public forum, the court held that it could deny the club access without engaging in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination." The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's holding.

Writing for a six-justice majority, Justice Clarence Thomas reversed the Second Circuit's judgment. In his opinion for the court, Justice Thomas held that "when Milford denied the Good News Club access to the school's limited public forum on the ground that the Club was religious in nature, it discriminated against the Club because of its religious viewpoint in violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment."[34]

Nebraska law prohibiting partial-birth abortions held unconstitutional (2000)
See also: United States Supreme Court (Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000))

Justice Thomas was a dissenting writer in the case of Stenberg v. Carhart, a case that involved a Nebraska law that banned partial birth abortions. The Supreme Court of the United States majority ruled that the Nebraska law was unconstitutional in placing an undue burden upon a woman's right to an abortion. Thomas' dissenting opinion argued that while the Constitution defined the right to an abortion, it did not define how a state must regulate those abortions. In the conclusion of his dissent, he wrote:

“ We were reassured repeatedly in Casey that not all regulations of abortion are unwarranted and that the States may express profound respect for fetal life. Under Casey, the regulation before us today should easily pass constitutional muster. But the Court's abortion jurisprudence is a particularly virulent strain of constitutional exegesis. And so today we are told that 30 States are prohibited from banning one rarely used form of abortion that they believe to border on infanticide. It is clear that the Constitution does not compel this result.[35][27] ”


Noteworthy events

Anita Hill allegations

Toward the end of Thomas' confirmation process, an FBI interview with Anita Hill, an attorney who had worked for Thomas at the Department of Education and the EEOC, was leaked. Hill was called to testify at Thomas' confirmation hearings, where she alleged that Thomas had subjected her to inappropriate harassing comments of a sexual nature.

Thomas denied the allegations, stating:

“ This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.[36][27] ”

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Clarence Thomas Supreme Court. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Clarence Thomas (Supreme Court) - Google News

See also

External links


Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Oyez, "Clarence Thomas," accessed February 1, 2019
  2. ↑ Federal Judicial Center, "Thomas, Clarence," accessed on April 16, 2021
  3. ↑ Washington Post, "Ted Wells, center of the defense," February 21, 2007
  4. ↑ National Constitution Center, "Justice Thomas, originalism and the First Amendment," February 20, 2019
  5. ↑ NPR, "Clarence Thomas: From 'Black Panther Type' To Supreme Court's Conservative Beacon," July 14, 2019
  6. ↑ CBS News, "Clarence Thomas speaks in Supreme Court case for first time since 2016," March 20, 2019
  7. ↑ The Washington Times, "Justice Clarence Thomas often stands alone as opinions set course for future," June 30, 2016
  8. ↑ New York Times, "The Supreme Court; conservative black judge, Clarence Thomas, is named to Marshall's court seat," July 2, 1981
  9. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Thomas rated 'qualified' for court by ABA," August 28, 1991
  10. ↑ Library of Congress, "Presidential Nominations 102nd Congress (1991 - 1992) PN456-102: Clarence Thomas," accessed April 16, 2021
  11. ↑ CNN, "Clarence Thomas fast facts," June 2, 2014
  12. ↑ NPR.org, "Thomas confirmation hearings had ripple effect," October 11, 2011
  13. ↑ THOMAS, "Confirmation vote of Clarence Thomas," accessed June 16, 2014
  14. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Current justice biographies," accessed June 16, 2014
  15. ↑ Cornell University, "WRITINGS BY JUSTICE THOMAS," accessed June 16, 2014
  16. ↑ SCOTUSBlog, "Final Stat Pack for October Term 2016 and key takeaways," accessed April 16, 2018
  17. ↑ SCOTUSBlog, "Final Stat Pack for October Term 2017 and key takeaways," accessed October 4, 2018
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 SCOTUSblog, "STAT PACK for the Supreme Court's 2021-22 term," July 1, 2022
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 Empirical SCOTUS, "Another One Bites the Dust: End of 2022/2023 Supreme Court Term Statistics," November 16, 2023
  20. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "2020-21 Stat pack: Justice Agreement," July 2, 2021
  21. ↑ Due to a change in the 2020 stat pack format, the agreement rate uses the rate of agreement in judgment.
  22. ↑ Due to a change in the 2021 stat pack format, the agreement rate uses the rate of agreement in judgment.
  23. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "OT18 Frequency in the Majority," accessed July 3, 2019
  24. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "2020-21 Stat pack: Frequency in the majority," July 2, 2021
  25. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Frequency in the Majority," accessed September 21, 2020
  26. ↑ The Supreme Court Database, "Analysis," accessed June 11, 2019
  27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 27.2 27.3 27.4 27.5 27.6 27.7 27.8 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  28. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Mont v. United States, decided June 3, 2019
  29. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Stokeling v. United States" Opinion, January 15, 2019
  30. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Stokeling v. United States" Opinion, January 15, 2019
  31. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt," May 13, 2019
  32. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. v. Jackson, May 28, 2019
  33. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States,Kansas v. Marsh, June 26, 2006
  34. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Good News Club v. Milford Central School, June 11, 2001
  35. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Stenberg v. Carhart, June 28, 2000
  36. ↑ University of Virginia Library, "Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court," accessed June 13, 2014

Political offices
Preceded by
- 		Supreme Court of the United States
1991-Present		 Succeeded by
-
Preceded by
- 		United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
1990-1991		 Succeeded by
Judith Rogers



Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Clarence_Thomas_(Supreme_Court)&oldid=9321717"