How many opinions has thomas written

This information is updated annually at the end of each term. In the term, Thomas had the highest agreement rate with Neil Gorsuch. Thomas had the highest disagreement rate with Sonia Sotomayor. He disagreed most often with Sonia Sotomayor. In the term, Thomas was in the majority in 81 percent of decisions. Thomas was in the majority more often than three of the nine justices.

He and Sonia Sotomayor were in the majority the least often of the nine justices. Across those 10 terms, he has been in the majority for 78 percent of all cases.

The noteworthy cases listed in this section include any case where the justice authored a majority opinion or an dissent. Other cases may be included in this decision if they set or overturn an established legal precedent, are a major point of discussion in an election campaign, receive substantial media attention related to the justice's ruling, or based on our editorial judgment that the case is noteworthy. For more on how we decide which cases are noteworthy, click here.

Since he joined the court through the term, Thomas authored the majority opinion in a decision 40 times and authored a dissent in an decision 30 times.

The table below details these cases by year. Thomas authored a majority opinion in this case holding that Mont's supervised release was tolled under 18 U. Thomas wrote: [25]. Thomas wrote: [27]. Thomas authored a majority opinion in this case that overturned Nevada V. Nevada ruled that states did not have sovereign immunity in one another's courts. Thomas wrote: [29]. States retain their sovereign immunity from private suits brought in the courts of other States.

Thomas authored a majority opinion in this case holding that "Home Depot could not remove the class-action claim filed against it" because provisions in 28 U. Thomas wrote: [30]. Justice Thomas was the author of the majority opinion in the case of Kansas v. The case came before the Supreme Court of the United States after the Kansas Supreme Court overturned a sentence by a lower state court that found that the equal balance of mitigating factors and aggravating factors should result in the death penalty, which was in accordance with Kansas law.

Justice Thomas and the majority agreed with the lower court that the sentencing was carried out in accordance with the Kansas Constitution.

He wrote:. Consistent with the laws of New York , Milford Central School authorized district residents to use its facilities for after-school activities under its community use policy. Two district residents, Stephen and Darleen Fournier, sought approval to use school facilities for a children's Christian organization called the Good News Club. The school denied the Fourniers' request. The school claimed that the organization's proposed activities, which included prayer, Bible study, and singing songs, constituted a practice of religious worship in violation of the school's community use policy.

The club filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging that the denial of the club's application violated its rights of free speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. A federal district court awarded summary judgment Refers to a judgment granted on a claim about which there is no genuine issue of fact and to which the party moving for judgment prevails as a matter of law.

Writing for a six-justice majority, Justice Clarence Thomas reversed The action of an appellate court overturning a lower court's decision. In his opinion for the court, Justice Thomas held that "when Milford denied the Good News Club access to the school's limited public forum on the ground that the Club was religious in nature, it discriminated against the Club because of its religious viewpoint in violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Justice Thomas was a dissenting writer in the case of Stenberg v.

Carhart, a case that involved a Nebraska law that banned partial birth abortions. The Supreme Court of the United States majority ruled that the Nebraska law was unconstitutional in placing an undue burden upon a woman's right to an abortion. Thomas' dissenting opinion argued that while the Constitution defined the right to an abortion, it did not define how a state must regulate those abortions. In the conclusion of his dissent, he wrote:. Hill was called to testify at Thomas' confirmation hearings, where she alleged that Thomas had subjected her to inappropriate harassing comments of a sexual nature.

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Clarence Thomas Supreme Court. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles. Johnson, Jr. Ballotpedia features , encyclopedic articles written and curated by our professional staff of editors, writers, and researchers.

Click here to contact our editorial staff, and click here to report an error. Click here to contact us for media inquiries, and please donate here to support our continued expansion. Share this page Follow Ballotpedia. What's on your ballot? Jump to: navigation , search. He rejects laws and programs designed to help black people, because he views white paternalism and its attendant stigma as the greatest impediment to black advancement.

Something of value? For instance, in the case Virginia v. Many of his judicial opinions turn on the assertion that his methodology would produce better results for black people than the prevailing liberal orthodoxy. Still, Robin is not hurling insults. He is deconstructing a sphinx, and his point carries the uncomfortable ring of truth. If Thomas wants to take America back to its founding, that project entails reconciling slavery and the law. Perhaps this simply cannot be done. For his part, Thomas has not tried, interpreting the post—Civil War amendments far more narrowly than other justices.

The Enigma of Clarence Thomas therefore deserves credit for attempting to understand the worldview of a jurist who at times can seem almost willfully perverse. He was raised by his harsh and inflexible grandfather, Myers Anderson, who maintained a middle-class life through ownership of a modest fuel-delivery business.

He never praised the boys or showed them affection. In his presence there was no play, no fun, and little laughter. Anderson proceeded to throw him out of the house. Small wonder that a jurist who learned at the knee of such a taskmaster would reject leniency for vagrants, mercy for criminals, and even integration measures.

Nor does it come as a surprise that Thomas would open a dissenting opinion on affirmative action which he opposes with these lines from Frederick Douglass:. Thomas may not, like his fellow conservatives, believe that the world, or the Constitution, is color-blind.

But he advocates a similar result, arguing that the best way forward for African Americans is with a clean slate, rather than clumsy attempts at redress that only add more insidious obstacles to progress. As even his admirers acknowledge, Thomas stands alone in making his argument. That was indeed a conservative victory, but hardly comparable in magnitude to others handed down during his tenure.

The truth is that Rehnquist and Roberts never trusted Thomas to write an opinion in a big case that could command a majority of even his conservative colleagues. Why was this? It is because Thomas is not a conservative but, rather, a radical—one whose entire career on the Court has been devoted to undermining the rules of precedent in favor of his own idiosyncratic interpretation of the Constitution.

By his own account, Thomas is an extreme originalist, one who is guided exclusively by his own understanding of what the words of the Constitution mean rather than what the other hundred and eleven people who have served on the Court in its history have judged them to mean. His vision is more reactionary than that of any Justice who has served on the Court since the nineteen-thirties, and his views are closest to those of the Justices who struck down much of the New Deal during that era.

My review of the case law indicates that the substantial effects test is but an innovation of the 20th century. At an appropriate juncture, I think we must modify our Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

Authorship is not the only measure of influence, and in dissenting and concurring opinions Thomas has introduced certain conservative ideas into the bloodstream of Supreme Court opinions that have later commanded majorities.