Thomas Replaced Thurgood Marshall’s Vision With One More Amenable To The Powerful Than The Powerless

Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis. It was originally published at The Conversation.

As public attention focuses on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ close personal and financial relationship with a politically active conservative billionaire, the scrutiny is overlooking a key role Thomas has played for nearly three decades on the nation’s highest court.

Thomas’ predecessor on the court, Thurgood Marshall, was a civil rights lawyer before becoming a justice. In 1991, in his final opinion before retiring after a quarter century on the court, Marshall warned that his fellow justices’ growing appetite to revisit – and reverse – prior decisions would ultimately “squander the authority and legitimacy of this Court as a protector of the powerless.”

His prediction has been quoted by Supreme Court decisions since, including a three-justice dissent from the June 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling that declared there was no constitutional right to reproductive choice and overturned Roe v. Wade.

In his concurrence with the majority decision in that case, Thomas declared his opposition to Marshall’s principle, lamenting that the court had not done more to pare back its prior work. “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents,” Thomas wrote – directly implicating Americans’ rights to sexual privacy and same-sex marriage.

Throughout Thomas’ tenure he has pushed the Supreme Court to revisit prior decisions that embraced robust rights for society’s most vulnerable, and to replace Marshall’s vision with one more amenable to the powerful than the powerless. And in writing my book tracing the lives and work of both justices, I have seen the fruits of this effort multiply over the past decade.

A shield for those in need

Few phrases could so aptly capture Thurgood Marshall’s vision of the court’s work as “protector of the powerless.” And few, if any, Americans have done as much to make that vision a reality.

Marshall’s work to advance Black citizenship is well known, but he also fought for expanded rights for women and the indigent, the accused and convicted, adherents to marginalized religions and those with unpopular viewpoints.

At the root of Marshall’s jurisprudence was a hope that while law could be a powerful tool of oppression, it might also be a shield.

As he wrote in that final dissent, in Payne v. Tennessee, enforcement of constitutional rights “frequently requires this Court to rein in the forces of democratic politics,” to protect the powerless from the tyranny of the majority.

While his Payne dissent criticized the court for reversing itself, Marshall was no stranger to calling for reconsideration of established law. Marshall’s signature accomplishment as a lawyer in Brown v. Board of Education was to convince the court to overturn the doctrine of separate but equal that had emerged after the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision.

Three men in suits stand in front of the Supreme Court building.
The three attorneys who won Brown v. Board of Education stand outside the Supreme Court after their victory: from left, George E.C. Hayes, Thurgood Marshall and James Nabrit Jr. Bettmann via Getty Images

As a justice, Marshall argued passionately and repeatedly that the death penalty violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, leading to a brief period where it was considered unconstitutional.

The distinction between Marshall and Thomas is not really about whether the court should reverse past decisions but simply which ones.

While Marshall willed the court to become a “protector of the powerless,” Thomas has, I believe, argued not only to scale that vision back, but to advance the interests of the powerful.

Power as a key factor

While last summer’s abortion decision is an obvious example, Thomas has led the court’s assault on precedent in other areas as well.

For example, years before the court invalidated portions of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder, Thomas had argued that the lack of modern voting discrimination made the act unnecessary.

Similarly, recent decisions have followed Thomas’ lead in weakening the vitality of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which fortifies the separation between church and state.

Thomas has even called for the court to reconsider its ruling in Gideon v. Wainwright, which established a constitutional right to a lawyer for indigent criminal defendants.

In each case, it is the powerless who stand to be most significantly affected.

Those in need of constitutional protection in Thomas’ view are more likely to be property owners, corporations making campaign contributions or gun owners.

On affirmative action

Perhaps no topic better captures the distinction between the two men’s views than affirmative action, which the court is considering in a pair of cases from Harvard and the University of North Carolina to be decided this term.

The distrust of government that fuels many of Thomas’ perspectives is never more personal than in cases about the use of race in college admissions. He has railed against affirmative action, saying it brands Black people in prominent positions with a “stigma” about “whether their skin color played a part in their advancement.”

Indeed, Thomas claims his position requiring colorblindness is a better path toward full Black citizenship. He has made that claim even in situations where he knew it would result in more limited access to opportunities for Black students in the short term.

Marshall always looked at the issue from a different perspective, arguing that access to opportunities was essential not only for the Black students affected but for the nation at large.

“If we are ever to become a fully integrated society, one in which the color of a person’s skin will not determine the opportunities available to him or her,” Marshall wrote in 1977, “we must be willing to take steps to open those doors.”

It was access for the powerless that Marshall thought ought drive the thinking of the court.

But this summer, the court may finally embrace a different vision on affirmative action, coming again to a position Thomas has been advocating for decades.

That turn would be yet another reversal squandering Marshall’s vision of the court.

Daniel Kiel is a FedEx Professor of Law and the Author of The Transition: Interpreting Justice from Thurgood Marshall to Clarence Thomas at University of Memphis

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The Conversation
Latest Cafe

Notable Replies

  1. Clarence Thomas can not even be looked at on the same scale with Thurgood Marshall. He wouldn’t show up.

  2. I wish Mr Thomas had gone into a different line of work. The idea that he is against “reproductive choice” as the article put it seems to me to be at odds with the republican ideal of individual freedom

  3. He was put on the Court because he’s a soulless prick and Bush wanted a soulless prick on the Court. He has always ruled in favor or the rich and powerful. And against all others. If there’s an outrageous descent on the Court…he’s the man. A man that rode affirmative action through school and to where he is that’s done everything he can to take it away for others. A man safely position on the taxpayers dime that has nothing but contempt for those people. He s fucking horrible piece of shit…and that’s why he was put on that Court.

  4. “Horrible piece of shit”
    Like Alito, Clarabell prefers the term “fecal personhood”.

  5. Avatar for jeffs jeffs says:

    Anyone longing for the days of Poppy Bush’s “kinder gentler” gop should remember this.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

99 more replies

Participants

Avatar for heart Avatar for playitagainrowlf Avatar for richardinjax Avatar for chelsea530 Avatar for arrendis Avatar for lastroth Avatar for jeffs Avatar for gr Avatar for darrtown Avatar for sao Avatar for pshah Avatar for jonney_5 Avatar for tsp Avatar for coimmigrant Avatar for tindalos Avatar for jwbuho Avatar for eaharrison Avatar for garrybee Avatar for emiliano4 Avatar for Hatmama Avatar for old_guru Avatar for timbomov Avatar for texas_lib Avatar for john_adams

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: