Clarence Thomas in Supreme Court 2020s
On Abortion:
Nothing in Constitution dictates states must allow abortions
Thomas voted to overturn Roe in 1992, in his first term on the court, when he was a dissenter in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. He has repeatedly called for Roe and Casey to be overturned since. In 2000, he wrote in dissent when the court struck down
Nebraska's ban on "partial-birth abortion." Recounting the court's decision in Roe, he wrote, "Nothing in our
Federal Constitution deprives the people of this country of the right to determine whether the consequences of abortion to the fetus and to society outweigh the burden of an unwanted pregnancy on the mother.
Although a State may permit abortion, nothing in the Constitution dictates that a State must do so."
Source: Associated Press on 2022 SCOTUS abortion rulings
Nov 29, 2021
On Government Reform:
AZ mail-in restrictions don't violate Voting Rights Act
Arizona voting restrictions challenged as violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. First, voters casting their votes on Election Day outside their precinct are not counted. Second, mail-in ballots cannot be collected by anyone other than an
election official, a mail carrier, or a voter's family or household member. The court held, 6-3, that these restrictions did not violate the Act nor were they racially discriminatory.Dissenters argued that the Court's narrow reading weakened the law
and disregarded its intent to address disparities in how election laws affect different racial groups. The rule discarding "out of precinct votes" impacted black and Hispanic voters, with Arizona leading the country in discarding such votes.
Restrictions on vote collection makes voting more difficult for Native Americans.
Samuel Alito wrote the opinion of the Court. John Roberts, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett concurred.
Source: NPR commentary on 2021 SCOTUS rulings
Jul 1, 2021
On Drugs:
Federal marijuana laws may no longer be necessary or proper
Clarence Thomas says federal laws against marijuana may no longer be necessary. "A prohibition on intrastate use or cultivation of marijuana may no longer be necessary or proper to support the federal government's piecemeal approach," he wrote.
Thomas said the Supreme Court's ruling in 2005 upholding federal laws making marijuana possession illegal may now be out of date. "Federal policies of the past 16 years have greatly undermined its reasoning," he said. "The federal government's current
approach is a half-in, half-out regime that simultaneously tolerates and forbids local use of marijuana."Thirty-six states now allow medical marijuana, and 18 also allow recreational use. But federal tax law does not allow marijuana businesses to
deduct their business expenses. "Under this rule, a business that is still in the red after it pays its workers and keeps the lights on might nonetheless owe substantial federal income tax," Thomas said.
Source: NBC News on 2021 SCOTUS marijuana case
Jun 28, 2021
On Education:
Don't limit schools in regulating student off-campus speech
Summary by OnTheIssues: When then-14-year-old Brandi Levi did not make her school's varsity cheerleading squad, she posted on Snapchat "F--k school f--k softball f--k cheer f--k everything." As a result, she was suspended from the junior
varsity squad for a year. Majority opinion: The Court ruled 8-1 that though there might be circumstances in which off-campus speech might fall under the purview of the school, this did not qualify. It did not involve bullying or
threatening behavior, nor did it cause any disruptions at the school. Written by Breyer; joined by Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, & Barrett.
Concurring opinion: Alito, joined by Gorsuch, focused on when a school is
acting in loco parentis, agreeing that was not the case here.
Dissenting opinion: Thomas argued that, historically, a school can regulate off-campus speech if it has a tendency to harm the school, faculty, students, or programs.
Source: 2020 SCOTUS rulings: Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.
Jun 23, 2021
On Health Care:
Individual mandate is constitutional even with $0 tax
The Court's decision in California v. Texas concludes that the plaintiffs trying to undo ObamaCare had no business being in court. The case was brought by Texas officials who object to ObamaCare, centered on the law's individual mandate [which] required
most Americans to either obtain health insurance or pay higher taxes. In 2017, Congress amended ObamaCare to zero out this tax. The Texas plaintiffs claimed that this zeroed-out tax is unconstitutional and also claimed that the entire law must be
declared invalid if the zero dollar tax is stuck down.In a 7-2 ruling, the Court ruled that no one is allowed to bring suit to challenge a provision of law that does nothing: "The IRS can no longer seek a penalty; there is no possible Government
action that is causally connected to the plaintiffs' injury."
SCOTUS outcome:Authored by Breyer; joined by Roberts; Thomas; Sotomayor; Kagan; Kavanaugh; and Barrett. Thomas also wrote a concurring opinion. Alito and Gorsuch dissented.
Source: Reuters on 2021 SCOTUS ruling:ÿ"California v. Texas"
Jun 17, 2021
On Immigration:
DACA phase-out legally correct under administrative law
The Supreme Court blocked the Trump administration's attempt to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, an Obama-era program that protects immigrants brought to the US as children from deportation. After Trump came into office, the administration
announced the program had been created "without proper authority" and that DACA would be phased out. Federal courts said the administration had acted arbitrarily when phasing out the program. The 5-4 ruling emphasized that the administration failed to
provide an adequate reason to justify ending the DACA program.
In his dissent, Thomas wrote that the decision is "an effort to avoid a politically controversial but legally correct decision. The majority makes the mystifying determination that this
rescission of DACA was unlawful. In reaching that conclusion, the majority acts as though it is engaging in the routine application of standard principles of administrative law. On the contrary, this is anything but a standard administrative law case."
Source: CNN on Trump Cabinet / 2020 SCOTUS rulings
Jun 18, 2020
On Corporations:
Upheld "double windfall": plain text of tax law permits it
The Supreme Court ruled for taxpayers in a dispute over how to calculate taxes owed by shareholders of insolvent small businesses classified as "S corporations."
The court ruled 8-1 for two Colorado men who sought to use a $2 million forgiven debt to provide more tax deductions than the Internal Revenue Service said was allowed.
Writing for the court, Justice Clarence Thomas said other courts had expressed concern that such a ruling would give some shareholders a "double windfall."
But Thomas said the federal tax law's "plain text permits the taxpayers here to receive these benefits."
Source: Denver Post on 2020 SCOTUS case: "S Corp owners"
Jan 10, 2001
Page last updated: Mar 21, 2022