In a rare and striking public appearance at the Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law in Washington, D.C., Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas delivered remarks that have reignited the national debate over the role of legal precedent in American jurisprudence. Speaking on Thursday, September 25, 2025—just days before the Supreme Court’s new term is set to begin—Thomas challenged the authority of longstanding Supreme Court precedents, asserting that they are not “the gospel” and, in some instances, may have been “something somebody dreamt up and others went along with,” as reported by ABC News and other outlets.
Thomas’s comments, coming from the Court’s most senior conservative and a pivotal figure in its current 6-3 majority, have sent ripples through the legal and political communities. With the Supreme Court poised to consider a docket filled with high-stakes cases—including challenges to major rulings on presidential powers, voting rights, and same-sex marriage—his words offer a window into the Court’s evolving philosophy and the potential for seismic shifts in American law.
At the heart of Thomas’s remarks was a critique of the doctrine of stare decisis, the legal principle that courts should adhere to prior decisions to ensure stability and consistency in the law. “At some point we need to think about what we’re doing with stare decisis,” Thomas said, 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?”
To illustrate his point, Thomas employed a vivid metaphor, likening the blind adherence to precedent to passengers on a train who never bother to check who’s driving. “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,” he quipped. The message was clear: for Thomas, precedent deserves respect only if it is rooted in sound legal reasoning and tradition, not simply because it exists.
“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… 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,” Thomas continued, as reported by The Guardian. He further remarked, “If it’s totally stupid, and that’s what they’ve decided, you don’t go along with it just because it’s decided. I think we owe our fellow citizens more than that.”
The timing of Thomas’s statements is particularly significant. The Supreme Court’s 2025–2026 term, beginning October 6, is packed with cases that could upend decades of legal precedent. Among them is a potential challenge to Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the landmark decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. The Court is also set to review cases involving presidential removal powers—specifically, whether to overturn the nearly 90-year-old Humphrey’s Executor v. United States—as well as cases concerning race and redistricting under the Voting Rights Act.
Thomas’s skepticism toward precedent is not new. He has long advocated for the Court to revisit and, if necessary, overturn significant past decisions. Notably, in his concurring opinion when the Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, Thomas called for a reconsideration of all substantive due process precedents, including those involving rights to contraception and same-sex intimacy. According to The Daily Beast, Thomas has consistently positioned himself as the Court’s most aggressive critic of precedent, particularly in areas touching on race, reproductive rights, and LGBTQ protections.
During his remarks, Thomas defended the Court’s recent willingness to overturn major rulings, including Roe v. Wade, Chevron v. NRDC, and parts of the Voting Rights Act. He cited Buck v. Bell (1927)—a notorious decision upholding forced sterilization—as an example of precedent that remained formally intact for decades but was never officially overturned. “Do we believe that you can go around sterilizing people just because the case has been decided?” Thomas challenged his audience, underscoring his argument that not all precedent deserves blind allegiance.
Critics, however, warn that Thomas’s approach could destabilize foundational principles of American law. As NewsOne reported, some argue that the conservative majority’s willingness to undo established precedents threatens to unravel decades of legal protections for marginalized communities, especially in areas like reproductive rights, voting rights, and LGBTQ equality. The concern is amplified by the Court’s recent track record: a 2024 analysis from The New York Times found that, while the Roberts Court has been less willing than earlier courts to overturn precedent overall, the precedents it has revisited have often involved the nation’s most contentious issues.
Public confidence in the Supreme Court has also taken a hit. A September 3, 2025, report from the Pew Research Center indicates that half of Americans now hold an unfavorable view of the Court—a near-historic low. Much of this discontent is attributed to the 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, a move in which Thomas played an instrumental role and which led to a wave of abortion bans across many states.
Thomas’s remarks have also drawn attention to his personal judicial philosophy. He told the Catholic University audience that he feels no obligation to follow precedent “if I find it doesn’t make any sense,” emphasizing the need for more than just a “simple theoretical basis” for any ruling. “We should demand that, no matter what the case is, that it has more than just a simple theoretical basis,” he said, according to The Guardian.
As the Supreme Court prepares to open its new term, the legal and political stakes could hardly be higher. The cases on the docket—ranging from same-sex marriage to presidential powers, campaign finance, religious rights, and capital punishment—will test not only the boundaries of constitutional law but also the limits of stare decisis itself. With Thomas and the conservative majority signaling a willingness to revisit and potentially overturn even the most deeply entrenched precedents, the coming months may well redefine the landscape of American rights and governance.
For now, Justice Clarence Thomas’s words serve as both a warning and a rallying cry: the past, it seems, is no longer prologue at the nation’s highest court.
