Clarence Thomas (Supreme Court)

Clarence Thomas

Nonpartisan

Supreme Court of the United States

Tenure

1991 - Present

Years in position

34

Predecessor: Thurgood Marshall (Nonpartisan)

Prior offices:

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Years in office: 1990 - 1991

Successor: Judith Rogers (Nonpartisan)

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. President George H.W. Bush (R) nominated Thomas to the Court on July 8, 1991, to a seat vacated by Thurgood Marshall. The full U.S. Senate confirmed Thomas by a vote of 52-48, on October 15, 1991. Thomas was sworn in on October 23, 1991, becoming the second Black justice in U.S. history to sit on the Court. As of August 2025, he was the longest-serving active justice on the court.

Thomas began his legal career as the assistant attorney general of Missouri from 1974 to 1977 under then-Attorney General of Missouri John Danforth (R). Thomas was charged with representing the State Tax Commission and parts of the Missouri Department of Commerce. Afterward, Thomas worked as an attorney for American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation Monsanto and later became a legislative assistant for Danforth in the U.S. Senate. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan (R) appointed Thomas as the assistant secretary for civil rights in the U.S. Department of Education. In 1982, Reagan appointed Thomas chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), where he served for eight years until President George H. W. Bush (R) nominated him to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 1990. The Senate confirmed him in March 1990.

On July 1, 1991, Bush announced Thomas as his pick to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. Bush said Thomas, "was my first appointee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia... And I believe he'll be a great Justice. He is the best person for this position." During his confirmation hearings, Anita Hill, a former employee in the EEOC, accused Thomas of sexual harassment. Hill testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Thomas denied the allegations. The Senate voted 52-48 to confirm Thomas, and he was sworn in on October 23, 1991. Click here to read more about Anita Hill's testimony during Thomas' confirmation hearings.

Oyez—a free law project from Cornell’s Legal Information Institute (LII), Justia, and Chicago-Kent College of Law—characterized Thomas as historically "known for his quiet, stoic demeanor during oral arguments," adding, "Thomas is notorious for his lack of questions during oral arguments." In 2021, The New York Times reported that Thomas, who at one point did not ask a question during oral arguments over the course of a decade, had become talkative during the telephone oral arguments prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic when questions were asked justice-by-justice. In 2022, Axios reported that despite Thomas' demeanor, his influence on the Court had grown with his seniority, "[A]s the makeup of the court has shifted around him, Thomas’ views have gotten more influential. And that influence will only grow. ... Thomas has spent years essentially laying out a whole parallel understanding of the law. ... [he] has created a whole ecosystem of opinions that build on and reference each other almost in the same way as the court’s actual precedents, except for the fact that they are all one man speaking only for himself." Claremont McKenna College Professor Ralph Rossum, author of Understanding Clarence Thomas: The Jurisprudence of Constitutional Restoration, told Axios, "Thomas has been able to 'plow the field and plant the seeds' that other justices would later 'harvest' for their own majority opinions, even if they didn’t join Thomas at the outset... You see that coming to fruition again on abortion."

Oyez depicted Thomas' "conservative viewpoint that challenges, if not surpasses, even Justice Antonin Scalia’s originalism," adding, "[h]e has shown his opinions to lean farther right than any other justice on the bench today." In a 2001 speech, Thomas said that judges "should seek the original understanding of the provision’s text if the meaning of that text is not readily apparent. This approach works... to reduce judicial discretion and to maintain judicial impartiality... By tethering their analysis to the understanding to those who drafted and ratified the text, modern judges are prevented from substituting their own preferences for the Constitution." Constitutional historians and law professors have critiqued Thomas' interpretation and application of originalism in some cases as based on inaccurate readings of history and as ideologically results-oriented.

Of Thomas' legacy and controversies, The Washington Post's Robert Barnes wrote, "Dedicated supporters are determined that... Thomas gets his due as one of the court’s most productive, if unortho­dox, thinkers." Reuters' Richard Cowan wrote, "as one of the most conservative justices in a conservative-heavy Supreme Court, Thomas has been a lightning rod for liberals who have been frustrated by his rulings and his tone."

Between the time he joined the court and the end of the 2023-2024 term, Thomas authored the majority opinion in a 5-4 decision 40 times and authored a dissent in an 8-1 decision 36 times. Some of Thomas’ notable opinions include:

• the 5-4 majority opinion in the case Kansas v. Marsh (2006), which upheld a death sentence in agreement with Kansas state laws and a ruling by the Kansas Supreme Court.
• the 6-3 majority opinion in the case Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001), which held that a public school could not prevent a club from meeting after hours due to the club's religion.
• a concurring majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), which held that there was no constitutional right to an abortion.
• a dissenting opinion in Stenberg v. Carhart (2000), which found a Nebraska law banning certain abortion procedures to be unconstitutional.

Judicial nominations and appointments

United States Supreme Court (1991 - present)

Nomination Tracker
Nominee Information
Name: Clarence Thomas
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Progress
Confirmed 99 days after nomination.
ANominated: July 8, 1991
AABA Rating: Unanimously Qualified
Questionnaire:
AHearing: September 10-20, 1991; October 11-13, 1991
Hearing Transcript: Hearing Transcript
QFRs: (Hover over QFRs to read more)
AReported: October 1, 1991
AConfirmed: October 15, 1991
AVote: 52-48

On July 1, 1991, President George H. W. Bush (R) 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.

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 the committee called Anita Hill, an attorney who had worked at the Department of Education and the EEOC with Thomas as her supervisor, to testify before the committee regarding her allegations of sexual harassment against Thomas.

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.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals (1990-1991)

In 1990, President George H.W. Bush (R) appointed Thomas to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to a seat vacated by Robert H. Bork. Thomas served on the court for one year before his elevation to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Biography

Thomas was born in 1948 in Pin Point, Georgia. 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. He earned a bachelor's degree in English from Holy Cross College, where he was one of the school's first Black students and a founding member of the school's Black Student Union. He 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.

Professional career

• 1991 - Present: Associate justice, Supreme Court of the United States
• 1990-1991: Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
• 1982-1990: Chairman, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
• 1981-1982: Assistant secretary of education, Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education
• 1979-1981: Legislative assistant, Senator John Danforth (R-Mo.)
• 1977-1979: Attorney, Monsanto, St. Louis, Mo.
• 1974-1977: Assistant attorney general of Missouri

Approach to the law

Thomas is considered a judicial conservative adhering to the principle of originalism. Nina Totenberg of NPR called Thomas the "Supreme Court's Conservative Beacon" in July 2019. 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."

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.

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."

Martin-Quinn score

Thomas' Martin-Quinn score following the 2023-2024 term was 3.1, making him the 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 2023-2024 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.

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. 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. Information for the 2023 term is from the Empirical SCOTUS 2023 Stat Review.

Opinions written by year, Clarence Thomas
	2021-2022	2022-2023	2023-2024
Opinions	7	6	7
Concurrences	7	8	11
Dissents	8	8	5
Totals	22	22	23

• Click here for information on Justice Thomas' opinions from 2006 to 2021.

  Opinions written by year, Clarence Thomas
  	2006-2007	2007-2008	2008-2009	2009-2010	2010-2011	2011-2012	2012-2013	2013-2014	2014-2015	2015-2016	2016-2017	2017-2018	2018-2019	2019-2020	2020-2021
  Opinions	7	7	7	9	8	8	8	7	7	7	7	7	8	5	7
  Concurrences	2	8	6	6	12	8	11	7	11	8	15	16	14	14	11
  Dissents	7	9	8	3	4	5	6	1	19	17	9	8	6	12	5
  Totals	18	24	22	21	25	21	25	15	37	32	31	31	28	31	23

• Click here for information on Justice Thomas' opinions from 1991 to 2006.

  Opinions written by year, Clarence Thomas
  	1991-1992	1992-1993	1993-1994	1994-1995	1995-1996	1996-1997	1997-1998	1998-1999	1999-2000	2000-2001	2001-2002	2002-2003	2003-2004	2004-2005	2005-2006
  Opinions	0	11	9	8	8	8	9	10	7	8	9	8	9	9	8
  Concurrences	0	8	7	4	7	5	4	2	7	8	8	7	5	9	7
  Dissents	0	6	6	8	8	6	2	5	10	6	4	7	11	9	12
  Splits	0	0	3	1	1	3	2	1	1	1	2	3	3	2	2
  Totals	0	25	25	21	24	22	17	18	25	21	23	25	28	29	29

Justice agreement

In the 2023-2024 term, Thomas had the highest agreement rate with Samuel Alito. He had the lowest agreement rates with Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. In the 2022-2023 term, Thomas had the highest agreement rate with Samuel Alito. He had the lowest agreement rate with Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. This does not include agreements in part.

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

Clarence Thomas agreement rates by term, 2017 - Present
Justice	2017-2018	2018-2019	2019-2020	2020-2021	2021-2022	2022-2023	2023-2024
John Roberts	79%	76%	72%	75%	79%	75%	80%
Anthony Kennedy	83%	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Ruth Bader Ginsburg	55%	50%	49%	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Stephen Breyer	55%	51%	52%	63%	48%	N/A	N/A
Samuel Alito	93%	85%	92%	82%	90%	85%	90%
Sonia Sotomayor	51%	50%	44%	55%	40%	65%	51%
Elena Kagan	59%	60%	50%	67%	49%	64%	51%
Neil Gorsuch	81%	81%	80%	88%	78%	76%	83%
Brett Kavanaugh	N/A	80%	78%	78%	79%	73%	78%
Amy Coney Barrett	N/A	N/A	N/A	85%	87%	82%	81%
Ketanji Brown Jackson	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	64%	53%

Frequency in majority

In the 2023-2024 term, Thomas was in the majority in 80 percent of decisions. Thomas was in the majority more often than three of the other justices. 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.

Since the 2011-2012 term, Thomas has been in the majority more than 80 percent of the time five times. Across those terms, he has been in the majority on average in 78 percent of all cases.

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 2023-2024 term, Thomas authored the majority opinion in a 5-4 decision 40 times and authored a dissent in an 8-1 decision 36 times. The table below details these cases by year.

Clarence Thomas noteworthy cases
Year	5-4 majority opinion	8-1 dissenting opinion
Total	40	36
2023-2024	0	1
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

• SCOTUS 2021 term (Click to expand)

  
  

  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 (2022), holding that the U.S. Constitution did not provide a right to abortion. Associate Justice Samuel Alito authored the majority opinion, 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 v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). In the majority opinion, 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.	”
  —Justice Alito

  In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas wrote that all of the Court's substantive due process precedents needed reconsideration, including cases establishing the constitutional right to privacy for married couples regarding contraception, invalidating state laws criminalizing anal and/or oral sex between consenting adults, and protecting the fundamental right to marry for same-sex couples:

  “	... [I]n 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.	”
  —Justice Clarence Thomas

• SCOTUS 2018 term (Click to expand)
  
  

  Supervised release (2019)

  See also: Mont v. United States

  Thomas authored a 5-4 majority opinion in Mont v. United States (2019), 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 John Roberts and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh. Thomas wrote:

  “

  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.

  ”

  Use of force overcoming robbery victim's resistance deemed a violent felony under Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) (2019)

  See also: Stokeling v. United States

  state robbery offense that has as an element the use of force sufficient to overcome a victim’s resistance is categorically a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) because it necessitates the use of “physical force.”

  Thomas authored a 5-4 majority opinion in Stokeling v. United States (2019) 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 Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. Thomas wrote:

  “

  '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.

  ”

  Nevada v. Hall overturned, states immune from suits in other states' courts (2019)

  See also: Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt

  Thomas authored a 5-4 majority opinion in this case that overturned Nevada V. Hall (1979), which allowed states to be haled into other states' courts without their consent. Thomas was joined in the majority by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. Thomas wrote:

  “

  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.

  ”

  Third-party defendants to counterclaims in state court civil actions cannot remove to federal court (2019)

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

  In Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. v. Jackson (2019), Thomas authored the Court's 5-4 majority opinion, 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 Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Thomas wrote:

  “

  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.

  ”

  
  

• SCOTUS 2005 term (Click to expand)
  
  

  Kansas death sentence upheld (2006)

  Kansas v. Marsh (2006) came on an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States after the Kansas Supreme Court overturned Michael Lee Marsh's II death penalty sentence ordered by the Crawford district court. The state district court found that the equal balance of mitigating factors and aggravating factors in the case—known as equipoise—result in a tie-breaker of implementing the death penalty, in accordance with Kansas state law. After Marsh's sentencing, the state supreme court in State v. Kleypas (2001) held that the state law imposing the death penalty as a tie-breaker was an instructional error in the case, and that "fundamental fairness requires that a "tie goes to the defendant" when life or death is at issue." With that, the Kansas Supreme Court overturned Marsh's death penalty sentence as unconstitutional.

  After reviewing the case, SCOTUS reversed the state supreme court in a 5-4 vote, holding that the district court had properly sentenced Marsh in accordance with state law. For the majority, Justice Thomas wrote:

  “

  The dissent’s general criticisms against the death penalty are ultimately a call for resolving all legal disputes in capital cases by adopting the outcome that makes the death penalty more difficult to impose. While such a bright-line rule may be easily applied, it has no basis in law. Indeed, the logical consequence of the dissent’s argument is that the death penalty can only be just in a system that does not permit error. Because the criminal justice system does not operate perfectly, abolition of the death penalty is the only answer to the moral dilemma the dissent poses. This Court, however, does not sit as a moral authority. 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’ prerogatives to do so on the grounds the dissent invokes today.

  ”

  In his dissent, Justice David Souter wrote:

  “

  In Kansas, when a jury applies the State’s own standards of relative culpability and cannot decide that a defendant is among the most culpable, the state law says that equivocal evidence is good enough and the defendant must die. A law that requires execution when the case for aggravation has failed to convince the sentencing jury is morally absurd, and the Court’s holding that the Constitution tolerates this moral irrationality defies decades of precedent aimed at eliminating freakish capital sentencing in the United States.

  ”

• SCOTUS 2000 term (Click to expand)
  
  

  Freedom of religious speech protected under First Amendment (2001)

  See also: Good News Club v. Milford Central School (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 on the basis that the organization's proposed activities including prayer and Bible study constituted a practice of religious worship in violation of the school's community use policy. The club sued the school 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.

  The case Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001) was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. 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."

• SCOTUS 1999 term (Click to expand)
  
  

  
  

  Nebraska law prohibiting dilation and extraction abortion procedure held unconstitutional (2000)

  Justice Thomas was a dissenting writer in the case of Stenberg v. Carhart (2000), which involved a Nebraska law that banned partial birth abortions, a political term first coined by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) in 1995 in order to describe a medical procedure to remove fetuses from the womb, also known as dilation and extraction. The Supreme Court of the United States majority ruled that the Nebraska law was unconstitutional in placing an undue burden upon a pregnant person's right to an abortion and because there was no exception for cases in which the pregnant person's health was threatened. For the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote:

  “	In sum, using this law some present prosecutors and future Attorneys General may choose to pursue physicians who use D&E procedures, the most commonly used method for performing previability second trimester abortions. All those who perform abortion procedures using that method must fear prosecution, conviction, and imprisonment. The result is an undue burden upon a woman's right to make an abortion decision. We must consequently find the statute unconstitutional.	”
  —Justice Stephen Breyer

  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.	”
  —Justice Clarence Thomas

  In 2003, President George W. Bush (R) signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act into law, prohibiting physicians from performing intact dilation and extraction abortion procedure. The law was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Carhart (2007)

  
  

Noteworthy events

Anita Hill sexual harassment allegations

Anita Hill was an attorney who had worked at the Department of Education and the EEOC where Thomas was her supervisor. During Thomas' confirmation process to the U.S. Supreme Court, an FBI interview with Anita Hill was leaked to the press. Hill was then called to testify publicly before the Senate Judiciary Committee at Thomas' confirmation hearings, as part of the committee's process of assessing the nominee's character and temperament. Hill detailed her allegations of sexual harassment by Clarence Thomas over the course of their professional relationship, and was questioned by the committee. Before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Hill read a prepared statement as part of her testimony:

“	It is only after a great deal of agonizing consideration that I am able to talk of these unpleasant matters to anyone but my closest friends. Telling the world is the most difficult experience of my life. I was aware that he could effect my future career and did not wish to burn all my bridges. I may have used poor judgment; perhaps I should have taken angry or even militant steps both when I was in the agency or after I left it, but I must confess to the world that the course I took seemed to me to be the better as well as the easier approach. I declined any comment to newspapers, but later, when Senate staff asked me about these matters, I felt I had a duty to report. I have no personal vendetta against Clarence Thomas. I seek only to provide the Committee with information which it may regard as relevant. It would have been more comfortable to remain silent. I took no initiative to inform anyone. But when I was asked by a representative of this committee to report my experience, I felt that have had no other choice but to tell the truth.	”
—Anita Hill

Angela Wright, who had also worked for Thomas at the EEOC, was also present at the hearings, prepared to testify as to her own allegations of Thomas' sexual impropriety. She was never called to testify by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

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.

”

The Federal Bureau of Investigations' (FBI) investigation returned with an inconclusive report on the allegations within three days.

See also

• Supreme Court of the United States
• United States Supreme Court cases and courts

External links

Search Google News for this topic

• U.S. Supreme Court
• U.S. Supreme Court Biography
• Biography from the Federal Judicial Center
• Profile by Oyez
• Profile from the Supreme Court Historical Society

Footnotes

Political offices
Preceded by Thurgood Marshall	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