As the United States Supreme Court gears up for a new term in October 2025, a rare public appearance by Justice Clarence Thomas has cast a spotlight on the court’s evolving approach to precedent. Speaking on September 25 at Catholic University’s Columbus School of Law in Washington, D.C., Thomas delivered candid remarks that challenge the long-held doctrine of stare decisis—the principle that courts should stand by previous decisions to ensure legal stability.
“At some point we need to think about what we’re doing with stare decisis,” Thomas told the audience, according to USA TODAY. He continued, “And it’s not some sort of talismanic deal where you can just say ‘stare decisis’ and not think, turn off the brain.” His comments, echoed in Newsmax and Courthouse News, signal a judicial philosophy that places less weight on precedent for its own sake, especially when Thomas believes prior rulings stray from the nation’s legal traditions or the Constitution’s text.
Stare decisis, Latin for “to stand by things decided,” has been a cornerstone of American jurisprudence. But Thomas’s skepticism is hardly theoretical. Over the past few years, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority—of which Thomas is a pivotal member—has overturned several landmark rulings, most notably Roe v. Wade, which had guaranteed abortion rights for nearly half a century, and long-standing affirmative action policies in higher education. As reported by Courthouse News, Thomas defended these moves, arguing that “the precedent should be respectful of our legal tradition and our country and our laws and be based on something, not just something that somebody dreamt up and others went along with.”
Thomas’s willingness to question precedent is not without historical grounding. He pointed to the Supreme Court’s 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which overturned the infamous 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson ruling that had enshrined racial segregation. “I do give respect to the precedent, but the precedent should be respectful of our legal tradition and our country and our laws and be based on something,” Thomas said, as quoted by Courthouse News. By invoking Brown, Thomas suggested that overruling precedent can sometimes be not only justified but necessary to correct grave legal errors.
Yet, the justice’s remarks went further, questioning whether some of his colleagues have become too comfortable with simply following established rulings. “We never go to the front to see who’s driving the train, where is it 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, according to Newsmax. His analogy drew laughter but underscored a serious point: blind adherence to precedent, in his view, risks perpetuating mistakes.
Thomas was careful to clarify that he does not see himself—or any justice—as infallible. “I don’t think that I have the gospel,” he remarked, “that any of these cases that have been decided are the gospel, and I do give perspective to the precedent.” He stressed that respect for precedent must be earned by decisions that are grounded in the law and the nation’s legal traditions, not by mere longevity or popularity.
The timing of Thomas’s remarks is significant. The Supreme Court’s upcoming docket is packed with cases that could see the justices overturn or significantly weaken long-standing precedents. Among the most notable is Trump v. Slaughter, scheduled for oral arguments in December 2025, in which former President Donald Trump is seeking the authority to fire a Democrat-appointed Federal Trade Commission commissioner without cause. This case directly challenges the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor v. United States decision, which limited the president’s power to remove independent agency heads. The court’s willingness to revisit this nearly century-old precedent—previously upheld even as recently as when Trump sought to remove the last Democratic FTC member—illustrates the high stakes.
Justice Elena Kagan, in a recent dissent, warned that the majority appears “raring” to overturn Humphrey’s Executor, according to USA TODAY. The administration has asked the Supreme Court to uphold Trump’s changes to birthright citizenship, putting a 127-year-old ruling in jeopardy. Meanwhile, the court is also set to hear Louisiana v. Callais on October 15, 2025, which could upend the 1986 Thornburg v. Gingles precedent that established key protections against racial gerrymandering under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Legal experts note that a ruling in this case could weaken the ability for challenges to be brought against congressional maps, potentially reshaping the landscape of voting rights litigation.
Other cases on the horizon include possible reconsideration of a 2001 decision that restricts how much political parties can coordinate spending with federal candidates. The Republican Party argues that the old limits no longer make sense in today’s political climate. While there is also an appeal from a former Kentucky county clerk seeking to overturn the 2015 decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide, most legal observers doubt the court will revisit that landmark ruling, especially since the justices declined to intervene at an earlier stage in 2020. At the time, Thomas wrote that the case was a “stark reminder” of the consequences of the same-sex marriage decision, but did not “cleanly present” the questions needed to reconsider it.
All of this comes as the Supreme Court’s role in shaping American life is under intense scrutiny. Critics argue that the court’s readiness to revisit and overturn precedent undermines legal stability and predictability, while supporters say it is correcting past errors and restoring fidelity to the Constitution. Thomas, for his part, is unapologetic. He has consistently voted to overturn precedents he views as unmoored from the nation’s legal foundations, including on abortion, affirmative action, and administrative law.
“I do give respect to the precedent, but the precedent should be respectful of our legal tradition and our country and our laws and be based on something,” Thomas reiterated at Catholic University, as reported by Courthouse News. For Thomas, it seems, precedent is not a shield against change but a tool to be wielded carefully and, when necessary, set aside.
With the Supreme Court poised to revisit several foundational rulings in its upcoming term, Thomas’s remarks offer a window into the court’s shifting philosophy. Whether this approach will lead to greater clarity or further controversy remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: the high court’s decisions in the coming months will have lasting repercussions for American law and society.
