Clarence Thomas Urges 'Reexamination' of 150-Year-Old Civil Rights Statute
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a new opinion issued Thursday that the Court should "reexamine" a century-old section of federal law that widely enables civil rights litigation.
Why It Matters
The Supreme Court's 6-3 decision along partisan lines on Thursday in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic rules that states can block Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider. The South Carolina case originally stems from non-abortion services including contraception, cancer screenings and pregnancy testing.
What To Know
Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the opinion for the conservative-leaning court. Liberal justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
But it was Justice Thomas' parting words in his dissent that also drew attention.
"The Court properly applies our precedents to resolve the question presented," Thomas writes. "As it makes clear, even under current doctrine, courts should not too readily recognize a statutory right as enforceable under §1983.
"But, given the remarkable gap between the original understanding of §1983 and its current role, a more fundamental reexamination of our §1983 jurisprudence is in order."
U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas appears before swearing in Pam Bondi as U.S. Attorney General in the Oval Office at the White House on February 05, 2025 in Washington, DC.
U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas appears before swearing in Pam Bondi as U.S. Attorney General in the Oval Office at the White House on February 05, 2025 in Washington, DC.Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, known formally as 42 U.S.C. §1983, is a federal law that allows for the suing of state and local government officials for violating constitutional rights. It's also used widely in federal civil rights litigation.
Thomas' interpretation and feelings toward the 150-year-old law have been conveyed numerous times in past Court decisions.
In 2020, Thomas dissented on cases the Court declined to hear challenging the doctrine of qualified immunity, writing: "I have previously expressed my doubts about our qualified immunity jurisprudence. Because our Section 1983 qualified immunity doctrine appears to stray from the statutory text, I would grant this petition."
He also argued that while Section 1983 makes no mention of defenses or immunities, its text provides individuals the right to sue and "applies categorically to the deprivation of constitutional rights under color of state law."
In 2023, as part of the majority reaffirming that private plaintiffs can enforce spending clause enactments under Section 1983, Thomas wrote a 36-page solo dissent arguing provisions and constitutionality under that law.
This past February, the Court ruled in a case involving petitioners from Alabama who were unemployed workers and sued the Alabama Department of Labor under Section 1983 for allegedly unlawfully delaying the processing of state unemployment benefits claims.
"As a matter of first principles, States have unfettered discretion over whether to provide a forum for §1983 claims in their courts," Thomas wrote in a dissenting opinion. "And, Alabama's exhaustion rule does not transgress the limitations that our precedents have recognized."
What People Are Saying
Alexis McGill Johnson, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, in a statement: "Today, the Supreme Court once again sided with politicians who believe they know better than you, who want to block you from seeing your trusted health care provider and making your own health care decisions. And the consequences are not theoretical in South Carolina or other states with hostile legislatures. Patients need access to birth control, cancer screenings, STI testing and treatment, and more."
South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster in a statement: "Seven years ago, we took a stand to protect the sanctity of life and defend South Carolina's authority and values—and today, we are finally victorious. The legality of my executive order prohibiting taxpayer dollars from being used to fund abortion providers like Planned Parenthood has been affirmed by the highest court in the land."
Lila Rose, president and founder of anti-abortion group Live Action, in a post on X: "Taxpayers shouldn't be forced to fund abortion. Let's finish the job and defund them at the state & federal levels now!"
What Happens Next
The Court's decision potentially paves the way for other states to mirror how Medicaid funding is distributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
With Supreme Court Ruling, Another Check on Trump's Power Fades
The Supreme Court ruling barring judges from swiftly blocking government actions, even when they may be illegal, is yet another way that checks on executive authority have eroded as President Trump pushes to amass more power. The decision on Friday, by a vote of 6 to 3, will allow Mr. Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship to take effect in some parts of the country — even though every court that has looked at the directive has ruled it unconstitutional. That means some infants born to undocumented immigrants or foreign visitors without green cards can be denied citizenship-affirming documentation like Social Security numbers. But the diminishing of judicial authority as a potential counterweight to exercises of presidential power carries implications far beyond the issue of citizenship. The Supreme Court is effectively tying the hands of lower-court judges at a time when they are trying to respond to a steady geyser of aggressive executive branch orders and policies. The ability of district courts to swiftly block Trump administration actions from being enforced in the first place has acted as a rare effective check on his second-term presidency. But generally, the pace of the judicial process is slow and has struggled to keep up. Actions that already took place by the time a court rules them illegal, like shutting down an agency or sending migrants to a foreign prison without due process, can be difficult to unwind. Presidential power historically goes through ebbs and flows, with fundamental implications for the functioning of the system of checks and balances that defines American-style democracy. But it has generally been on an upward path since the middle of the 20th century. The growth of the administrative state inside the executive branch, and the large standing armies left in place as World War II segued into the Cold War, inaugurated what the historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. coined the 'imperial presidency.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
Why Trump's birthright citizenship ban still faces an uphill battle in court
President Donald Trump celebrated a Supreme Court ruling Friday that he said 'hit hard' at birthright citizenship. But his executive order to prohibit the children of unauthorized immigrants and foreign visitors from obtaining automatic U.S. citizenship still faces a steep challenge in court. Though the justices limited the ability of lower-court judges to issue nationwide injunctions, including those that halted his ban on birthright citizenship, they left open the possibility of granting universal relief through class-action lawsuits. Within hours of the ruling, several civil rights groups filed new class-action lawsuits to block Trump's birthright ban from taking effect.
Wall Street Journal
an hour ago
- Wall Street Journal
Trump Opponents Seek New Playbook After Supreme Court Limits Injunctions
For the past several presidential administrations, bold White House action has been met with a familiar legal counterattack: Find plaintiffs who can claim harm, sue in a favorable jurisdiction, and argue that a ruling with nationwide scope is essential to maintaining order. The Supreme Court's ruling against nationwide injunctions means that approach is largely out the window, leaving litigants to ponder uncertain strategies that could be slower and less potent.
