Something felt off long before Justice Clarence Thomas approached the microphone.
A murmur rippled across the auditorium as attendees shifted in their seats, bracing for remarks rumored to be unusually blunt.
A few clerks exchanged tight, uneasy glances—as if they already knew Thomas was about to challenge one of the judiciary’s most sacred assumptions. And when he finally stepped forward, the air seemed to sharpen. He was not there to soothe. He was there to upend.
At Catholic University’s Columbus School of Law, the Supreme Court’s longest-serving justice delivered one of his most pointed critiques yet of stare decisis—the doctrine urging courts to uphold precedent. Thomas argued that blind loyalty to old rulings can pull the law off its proper course.
Rethinking Reverence for Precedent
“Stare decisis isn’t a magic password you can recite and stop thinking,” he told the packed room. “Sometimes nobody bothers to see who’s actually driving the train—and you might find an orangutan in the engine.”
Laughter rippled through the crowd, but the point landed: for Thomas, precedent is an instrument, not an idol. He compared decades of accumulated case law to a train that keeps building momentum without anyone checking the map. “You keep adding cars,” he said. “But if you never inspect the engine, you may not discover you’ve been heading the wrong way for generations.”
Precedent Has Value—But Not Immunity
Thomas described his judicial philosophy with characteristic candor: “I don’t claim to possess truth, and I don’t treat old cases as sacred scripture. Precedent earns respect only when it reflects the Constitution, our history, and sound reasoning—not wishful thinking dressed up as law.”
This approach has shaped Thomas’s tenure since his 1991 confirmation. No modern justice is more willing to reassess—or dismantle—long-standing rulings.
His critics say this mindset jeopardizes stability. Thomas countered that stability is meaningless if built on constitutional errors.
“If a train is speeding toward a cliff,” he quipped, “you don’t stay onboard just because it’s the same route you’ve always taken.”
Revisiting the Court’s Most Controversial Decisions
Thomas’s comments come after a series of landmark reversals.
In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), the Court overturned Roe v. Wade, ending federal protections for abortion rights. To Thomas, Dobbs corrected a ruling he argued lacked constitutional grounding. To critics, it erased a half-century of settled expectations.
The following year, he sided with the majority in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and UNC, ending race-conscious admissions practices. While supporters celebrated a return to race-neutral evaluations, opponents saw an erosion of tools meant to counter entrenched inequality.
Thomas, who grew up under the shadow of segregation, sees it differently: “The Constitution is color-blind,” he reiterated. “If we cannot treat citizens equally under the law, we abandon our founding principles.”
A Philosophy That Divides—and Defines—an Era
Opponents say Thomas applies his philosophy selectively, targeting precedents conservatives dislike. Supporters insist he is remarkably consistent: he rejects results-focused judging and adheres to original meaning, even when politically inconvenient.
A constitutional scholar in attendance remarked, “Thomas doesn’t accept the idea that bad decisions become untouchable just because they’re old. For him, time doesn’t sanctify error.”
Thomas himself put it bluntly in past writings: “If a decision was wrong when issued, it remains wrong. Age cannot make it right.”
A Legacy of Unyielding Principle
Now in his 34th year on the Court, Thomas has become its most influential conservative thinker. Reserved during oral argument, he speaks through sweeping opinions that shape legal scholarship and guide lower courts. He has urged the Court to revisit rulings on federal agencies, gun regulations, same-s*x marriage, and religious liberties.
At Catholic University, he allowed a rare hint of reflection: “It’s been a long journey. The hardest task isn’t discovering what people want—it’s remaining faithful to what the law actually says.”
Immediate Fallout
Reactions to his speech came quickly. Conservative commentators applauded his clarity. Progressive scholars sounded alarms, warning that frequent reversals threaten public trust. Yet across ideological lines, many acknowledged his intellectual fortitude—even those who strongly disagree with him.
The Larger Battle Ahead
Thomas’s remarks highlight one of the Supreme Court’s most enduring tensions: when should the Court honor the past, and when must it break from it? With major cases on digital privacy, voting rights, and religious freedoms on the horizon, Thomas’s voice will continue shaping how the Court answers that question.
Conclusion
Justice Clarence Thomas’s speech crystallized a central debate: whether precedent should anchor the law or merely guide it. His insistence that fidelity to the Constitution outweighs fidelity to history remains controversial, but undeniably influential. As the Court navigates the defining issues