The United States Supreme Court is once again at the center of debate over the role of precedent in American law, as Justice Clarence Thomas has publicly questioned the sanctity of past rulings and signaled a willingness to revisit—and potentially overturn—landmark decisions. On September 29, 2025, as the justices returned from their summer recess for the annual “long conference,” Thomas’s comments resonated through legal and political circles, highlighting a pivotal moment for the high court and the nation’s approach to constitutional interpretation.
Justice Thomas, who has served on the Supreme Court for 34 years since his appointment by President George H.W. Bush, made his views unmistakably clear during a recent appearance at Catholic University’s Columbus School of Law. According to USA Today and SCOTUSblog, Thomas stated, “At some point we need to think about what we’re doing with stare decisis. And it’s not some sort of talismanic deal where you can just say ‘stare decisis’ and not think, turn off the brain.” He elaborated with a striking analogy, comparing legal precedent to a train: “We never go to the front to see who’s driving the train or where it is going, and you could go up there to the engine room and find out it’s an orangutan.”
For Thomas, precedent—known in legal circles as stare decisis—is neither “the gospel” nor “holy writ.” As he put it, “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.” These remarks, first reported by USA Today, reflect a judicial philosophy that prizes independent reasoning over automatic adherence to prior decisions.
This philosophy isn’t just academic. Over the past several years, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority has demonstrated a willingness to overturn longstanding precedents, most notably in its 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which ended the federal right to abortion established by Roe v. Wade in 1973. As reported by The Free Press and the Washington Post, the justices have also struck down affirmative action in college admissions in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, and overturned the Chevron deference doctrine, which had long required courts to defer to administrative agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous statutes.
Looking ahead to the 2025-26 term, which begins on October 6, the court is poised to revisit yet another foundational precedent: Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, a 1935 case that limited the president’s authority to fire officials at independent executive agencies. According to SCOTUSblog, the court’s docket includes a fresh examination of whether such protections for agency officials remain constitutional. In recent months, the justices have already allowed President Trump to remove members of several independent agencies, including the Federal Trade Commission, the Merit Systems Protection Board, the National Labor Relations Board, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission—a sign that the majority may be ready to overturn Humphrey’s Executor and expand presidential power.
The context for Thomas’s remarks is a Supreme Court increasingly willing to revisit—and sometimes reverse—longstanding decisions. Critics, particularly those on the left, argue that this approach undermines stability and predictability in the law. They point to the court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade as a dramatic example of how precedent can be swept aside, with real consequences for millions of Americans. Supporters of the court’s recent direction, however, contend that past mistakes should not be perpetuated simply because they are old. They argue that the Constitution’s meaning should not be frozen by prior errors, especially when those errors, in their view, depart from the nation’s legal traditions or the text of the Constitution itself.
Justice Thomas’s skepticism toward precedent is not new, but his candor has drawn renewed attention as the court prepares to address contentious issues in the coming term. During his talk at Catholic University, he emphasized that justices must engage critically with the law: “Justices cannot ‘turn off their brains’ and blindly follow precedent.” Instead, he insists on a thoughtful, case-by-case approach. According to SCOTUSblog, Thomas explained that “precedent is not some sort of automatic deal where you can just say, ‘Stare decisis,’ and then turn off the brain.”
The upcoming term promises to be a busy one for the justices. At their “long conference” on September 29, they reviewed a backlog of more than a thousand petitions accumulated over the summer, with expectations that between five and fifteen cases would be granted for full argument. Among the high-profile matters before the court are not only the challenge to Humphrey’s Executor but also a series of cases with significant political and social implications.
On September 26, the court issued an emergency docket decision allowing the Trump administration to withhold nearly $4 billion in foreign-aid funding, as reported by SCOTUSblog. That same day, the administration petitioned the court to review the legality of President Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, a move that could have far-reaching effects on immigration law and the status of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan citizens living in the United States. A response brief on the administration’s emergency application regarding the end of protected status for these Venezuelans was due by September 29.
These cases underscore the court’s central role in shaping national policy and the lives of ordinary Americans. Former Justice Anthony Kennedy, who served alongside Thomas and retired in 2018, recently expressed concern about the increasingly antagonistic tone of the court’s opinions and the broader political climate. In an interview with NPR, Kennedy observed, “Reasoned, thoughtful, rational, respectful discourse has been replaced by antagonistic, confrontational conversation,” adding that “the idea of partisanship is becoming much more prevalent and more bitter.” He called for the court to moderate its tone and become more respectful in its deliberations and opinions.
As the justices prepare to open their new term, the questions raised by Thomas and others about the nature of precedent, the limits of judicial power, and the proper interpretation of the Constitution are likely to shape the legal and political landscape for years to come. Whether the court will continue its recent trend of overturning past rulings or strike a new balance between stability and change remains to be seen. For now, one thing is clear: the debate over the role of precedent is far from settled, and the Supreme Court’s decisions in the coming months will be watched closely by Americans across the political spectrum.
With the nation’s highest court at a crossroads, the stakes for constitutional law and the future of American governance have rarely felt higher.
