“When interpreting the Constitution and statutes, 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. First, 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. Second, it places the authority for creating the legal rules in the hands of the people and their representatives, rather than in the hands of the judiciary. . . Third, this approach recognizes the basic principle of a written Constitution. ‘We the people’ adopted a written Constitution precisely because it has a fixed meaning, a meaning that does not change … Aside from amendment, according to Article V, the Constitution’s meaning cannot be updated, or changed, or altered by the Supreme Court, the Congress, or the President.”
Justice Clarence Thomas, Francis Boyer Lecture, AEI Annual Dinner, February 13, 2001
DECISIONS
This page is devoted to Justice Thomas’ jurisprudence, which is founded on an originalist approach to the Constitution.
All of Justice Thomas’ decisions can be found here, while below are some of the Justice’s most significant decisions.
- McDonald v. City of Chicago
- Grutter v. Bollinger
- Term Limits v. Thornton
- Lopez v. United States
- Camp Newfound v. Town of Harrison
- Apprendi v. New Jersey
- McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission
- Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC
- Hudson v. McMillian
- Holder v. Hall
- White v. Illinois
- Good News Club v. Milford Central School
- Zelman v. Simmons-Harris
- Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt
- Kelo v. New London
- Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
- Michigan v. EPA
- Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association
- Dept of Transportation v. Association of American Railroads (Amtrak)
- Zivotofsky v. Kerry
- United States v. Comstock
- Stenberg v. Carhart
- Wellness v. Sharif
ANALYSIS
“It’s not my constitution to play around with … People can say you are an originalist. I just think we should interpret the Constitution as it’s drafted, not as we would have drafted it.” – Justice Thomas
- Justice for Clarence Thomas: An Intellectual History of Justice Thomas’s Twenty Years on the Supreme Court
-Scott D. Gerber, University of Detroit Mercy Law Review, 2011 - AUDIO: Ralph Rossum, “Understanding Clarence Thomas: The Jurisprudence of Constitutional Restoration”
-Ralph Rossum and Justin Driver, University of Chicago, Federalist Society Chapter, 2016 - The Truth About Clarence Thomas And The Need For New Black Leadership
-Stephen F. Smith, Regent University Law Review, 2000 - Justice Thomas and the Originalist Turn in Administrative Law
-Brian Lipshutz, The Yale Law Journal, 2015 - Black Like Me: The Free Speech Jurisprudence of Clarence Thomas
-Steven B. Lichtman, Penn State Law Review, 2009 - Just Another Brother on the SCT?: What Justice Clarence Thomas Teaches Us
About the Influence of Racial Identity
-Angela Onwuachi-Willig, University of Iowa College of Law, 2005 - Clarence Thomas, Fisher v. University Of Texas, and the Future of Affirmative Action in Higher Education
-Scott D. Gerber, University of Richmond Law Review, 2016 - Clarence Thomas’s Originalist Understanding of the Interstate, Negative, and Indian Commerce Clauses
-Ralph A. Rossum, University of Detroit Mercy Law Review, 2011 - “My Rookie Years Are Over”: Clarence Thomas After Ten Years
-Scott D. Gerber, Journal of Gender, Social Policy and The Law, American University, 2002 - Liberal Originalism: The Declaration Of Independence And Constitutional Interpretation – Symposium: History and Meaning of the Constitution
-Scott D. Gerber, Cleveland State Law Review, 2014