In a rare but revealing public appearance, Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas has ignited fresh debate about the future of legal precedent in America. Speaking last week at the Catholic University Columbus School of Law in Washington, D.C., Thomas made it clear that the Supreme Court may be on the verge of rethinking—and potentially overturning—some of the nation’s most entrenched legal doctrines. His comments, delivered just days before the Court’s new term kicks off in October 2025, have sent ripples through the legal and political communities, raising questions about which landmark decisions might soon be up for reconsideration.
Justice Thomas, now the Court’s longest-serving member, did not mince words when describing his skepticism toward the doctrine of stare decisis—the legal principle that courts should generally follow previous rulings when deciding similar cases. "At some point we need to think about what we're doing with stare decisis," he told the audience, according to ABC News. "And it's not some sort of talismanic deal where you can just say 'stare decisis' and not think, turn off the brain, right?"
Thomas’s remarks, echoed in reports from Courthouse News and other outlets, suggest a more active role for the Court in revisiting—and possibly overturning—past decisions, especially when they conflict with the Constitution or the nation’s legal traditions. He used a striking metaphor to illustrate his point, likening the doctrine to a train: "We never go to the front [to] see who's driving the train, where it [is] going. And you could go up there in the engine room, find it's an orangutan driving the train, but you want to follow that just because it's a train," Thomas quipped. The analogy, both humorous and pointed, underscored his argument that precedent should not be followed blindly.
With the Supreme Court set to reconvene at the start of October, the timing of Thomas’s comments is hard to ignore. The justices are expected to review a slate of cases that could challenge or even upend precedents that have stood for decades—some nearly a century old. Among the cases reportedly on the Court’s radar are a potential challenge to Obergefell v. Hodges (the 2015 decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide), a 90-year-old precedent that limits the president’s authority to fire federal agency staff at will, and a case involving the rules for considering ethnicity in redistricting.
Thomas’s views on stare decisis are not new, but his willingness to voice them so publicly at this particular moment has drawn heightened attention. As he explained, “I don’t think that I have the gospel, that any of these cases that have been decided are the gospel, and I do give perspective to the precedent. But it should; the precedent should be respectful of our legal tradition, and our country, and our laws, and be based on something, not just something somebody dreamt up and others went along with.”
For Thomas, the ultimate touchstone is the Constitution itself. He argued that the Court’s obligation is to the rule of law, not to the inertia of tradition. “The precedent should be respectful of our legal tradition, and our country, and our laws, and be based on something,” he said, emphasizing that legal decisions must be grounded in the nation’s founding document and its established legal framework, rather than in judicial innovations that stray from those roots.
This philosophy has already shaped some of the Court’s most consequential rulings in recent years. Thomas was a pivotal figure in the 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark case that had established a constitutional right to abortion nearly half a century earlier. The reversal triggered a cascade of so-called “trigger laws” in many conservative states, banning abortion outright—often without exceptions for rape or incest. According to Raw Story, the ruling marked a dramatic shift in American law and set off fierce political battles across the country.
Thomas’s approach to precedent extends beyond abortion rights. He referenced the infamous 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision, which upheld state-enforced racial segregation under the doctrine of “separate but equal.” That ruling, Thomas noted, was eventually overturned by the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, which found segregation in public schools unconstitutional. The example, cited in Courthouse News, serves as a reminder that some of the nation’s most shameful legal chapters were only corrected when the Court was willing to reexamine and overturn bad precedent.
“Take, for example, the Supreme Court’s 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision, in which a majority of justices upheld state-enforced racial segregation under the guise of ‘separate but equal.’ Of course, the decision was completely at odds with the 14th Amendment and represented a gross infringement upon the constitutional rights of black Americans. Fortunately, that precedent was eventually overturned in the high court’s 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling,” Thomas argued, highlighting the dangers of clinging to precedent for its own sake.
In the current political climate, Thomas’s stance has drawn both praise and criticism. Supporters see him as a necessary voice of reason, arguing that the Court must be willing to correct past errors rather than perpetuate them. Critics, however, worry that a more aggressive approach to overturning precedent could destabilize the law and undermine public confidence in the judiciary. The recent reversal of Roe v. Wade and the Court’s willingness to revisit other long-settled issues have only intensified these concerns.
Thomas’s comments also come as the Court faces growing scrutiny from all sides of the political spectrum. Some progressives argue that the conservative majority is using its power to roll back rights and protections established over decades, while some conservatives contend that the Court is finally restoring constitutional principles that had been eroded by activist rulings. The debate over stare decisis—how much weight to give past decisions—lies at the heart of these clashes.
For his part, Thomas insists that a rigid adherence to precedent is not only unnecessary, but potentially dangerous. "It is not the job of judges or justices to abide by wrong precedent, but by the Constitution and existing law," he said. The implication is clear: the Supreme Court, in his view, should not hesitate to overturn even the most established rulings if they conflict with the nation’s founding values.
With the new Supreme Court term about to begin, all eyes will be on the justices—and on Thomas in particular—to see whether his public musings translate into concrete action on the bench. The coming months could see some of the country’s most significant legal doctrines put to the test, as the Court weighs whether to uphold, revise, or discard the precedents that have shaped American life for generations.
As the debate over precedent and the Constitution continues, Thomas’s remarks serve as a stark reminder: in the nation’s highest court, nothing is set in stone, and the past is always subject to reconsideration.
