Individual Over Group Rights: Clarence Thomas's Shift in Supreme Court Rulings
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas spearheads the Supreme Court in dismantling Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives
Hey there! Our legal guru, Shannon Bream, has the scoop on some groundbreaking Supreme Court decisions that are shaking things up. Let's dive in!
Clarence Thomas has long believed in evaluating individuals on their own merits, rather than through the lens of their race, gender, or ethnicity. It seems his peers on the bench are on board with this concept too.
Thomas's commitment to individual rights dates back to his days as Chairman of the EEOC, as evident in a 1985 law review article. He stated he intended to protect the rights of individuals harmed by discriminatory practices, emphasizing that the principle of equal opportunity, the backbone of civil rights, meant defending individual rights, not favoring specific groups.
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of an Ohio woman who claimed discrimination. Thomas's advocacy for individual rights has been a constant throughout his 30-plus years on the nation's highest court. For instance, in the 1995 Missouri v. Jenkins case, Thomas criticized the Brown v. Board of Education (1954) decision for relying on questionable social science evidence to declare segregation unconstitutional. Instead, he called for a return to the constitutional principle that the government must treat citizens as individuals, not as members of racial, ethnic, or religious groups.
Justice Thomas’s conception of equality found its strongest articulation in the 2007 Parents Involved case. His opinion highlighted that equal treatment means viewing all individuals as individuals, regardless of their race, Quoting Justice Harlan in Plessy, he stated, "Our Constitution is color-blind."
Last week's Supreme Court decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services signals a change in the game for proponents of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of the Court's most liberal members, wrote an opinion for a unanimous Court that the "background circumstances" rule imposed by several lower courts, requiring members of a majority group to satisfy a higher evidentiary standard to prove discrimination, is inconsistent with Title VII's text and the Supreme Court's anti-discrimination precedents.
Justice Thomas joined Justice Jackson's opinion in full. However, he also issued a concurring opinion, suggesting that the "background circumstances" rule is not only inconsistent with Title VII's text but is "plainly at odds with the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection." He also made it clear that Thomas sees his opinion as relevant to DEI initiatives, stating that such initiatives have often led to overt discrimination against those perceived as being in the majority.
The passing of Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016 sparked rumors about who would succeed him as the intellectual leader of the conservative legal movement. With his liberal colleagues conceding that American law protects individual rights over group rights in the Ames decision, it's clear that Clarence Thomas has taken on this role.
Related Article:
Our own Scott Douglas Gerber, author of "First Principles: The Jurisprudence of Clarence Thomas," delves deeper into Thomas's impact on the court in a separate article. Check it out to learn more!
Clarence Thomas's opinion in the Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services case aligns with his belief in individual rights, as he suggests that the "background circumstances" rule is not only inconsistent with Title VII's text but is "plainly at odds with the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection."
His stance on equal treatment, viewing all individuals as individuals regardless of their race, finds a significant expression in his concurring opinion in the Ames case, setting him apart as a leader in the debate on individual rights versus group rights in the realm of American law.
%20initiatives){kind=link}