Clarence Thomas Urges 'Reexamination' of 150-Year-Old Civil Rights Statute
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
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Guns or weed? Trump administration says you can't use both.
WASHINGTON – The Trump administration's aggressive defense of gun rights has at least one exception. The government's lawyers want the Supreme Court to make clear that regular pot smokers – and other drug users − shouldn't be allowed to own firearms. An appeals court has said a federal law making it a crime for drug users to have a gun can't be used against someone based solely on their past drug use. Limiting the law to blocking the use of guns while a person is high effectively guts the statute that reduces gun violence, the Justice Department told the Supreme Court. They're asking the justices to overturn the appeals court's decision. Trump's Justice Department has sided with gun owners in other cases The department's defense of the law is particularly notable as the Trump administration has sided with gun rights advocates in other cases – including one in which they declined to appeal a lower court's ruling against a federal law setting 21 as the minimum age to own a handgun. More: Trump DOJ wants Supreme Court to bring down hammer on gun rules But on the issue of drug use, the government is appealing four cases to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to focus on one involving a dual citizen of the United States and Pakistan who was charged with unlawfully owning a Glock pistol because he regularly smoked marijuana. The FBI had been monitoring Ali Danial Hemani because of his alleged connection to Iran's paramilitary Revolutionary Guard, which the government has designated a global terrorist group, according to filings. The government also alleges Hemani used and sold promethazine, an antihistamine used to treat allergies and motion sickness that can boost an opioid high, and used cocaine, although he was prosecuted based on his marijuana use. Hemani's attorneys said the government is trying to 'inflame and disparage' Hemani's character and the only facts that matter are that he was not high when the FBI found the Glock 19 in his Texas home. Hemani was charged with violating the federal law that prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who 'is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.' More: Supreme Court sides with Biden and upholds regulations of ghost guns to make them traceable Appeals court ruled past drug use not enough to stop gun ownership The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that the law can't be applied to Hamani under the Supreme Court's landmark 2022 decision that gun prohibitions must be grounded in history that is "consistent with our tradition of gun regulation." While history and tradition support 'some limits on a presently intoxicated person's right to carry a weapon,' the appeals court said, 'they do not support disarming a sober person based solely on past substance usage.' The Justice Department said the appeals court got it wrong. Laws that existed at the time the country was founded restricted the rights of habitual drinkers, even when they were sober, they argued. 'And for about as long as legislatures have regulated drugs, they have prohibited the possession of arms by drug users and addicts – not just by persons under the influence of drugs,' they wrote. Law used in hundreds of prosecutions, including Hunter Biden's Since the federal government created its background-check system for firearms in 1998, the federal restriction on drug users has stopped more gun sales than any requirement other than the ban on felons and fugitives owning weapons, according to the filing. And it's used in hundreds of prosecutions each year, they said. (Hunter Biden, who was later pardoned by his father during President Joe Biden's final weeks in office, was convicted in 2024 of violating the law by purchasing a gun despite having a known drug addiction.) Hunter Biden trial recap Joe Biden's son guilty on all charges in historic gun case Hemani's lawyers argue that the government's interpretation of the law makes no sense when an estimated 19% of Americans have used marijuana and about 32% own a firearm. That means millions of Americans are violating the law that could put them behind bars for up to 15 years, they said in a filing. The appeals court, Hemani's lawyers said, correctly applied the Supreme Court's past decisions and 'common sense' to rule that 'history and tradition only supports a ban on carrying firearms while intoxicated.' In addition to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, two other appeals courts have issued rulings that restrict use of the federal ban: both courts ruled there should be individualized assessments of defendants' drug use to determine if their rights could be restricted. Trump administration touts program to restore gun rights The Justice Department argues that 'marginal' cases are better addressed on a case-by-case basis, through a federal program the Trump administration restarted that lets individuals petition to have their gun rights restored. The administration's championship of that program makes it less surprising that the Justice Department is vigorously defending the ban on drug users having guns, said Andrew Willinger, executive director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law, a research center. In addition, the administration has shown a broad desire to crack down on illegal drug use. 'In some sense, when those two areas are colliding – gun rights and anti-drug policies – it looks like anti-drug policies are going to win out,' he said. More: Supreme Court rules Mexico can't sue US gunmakers over cartel violence Willinger said there's a relatively strong chance the Supreme Court will get involved, which the justices tend to do when a lower court strikes down or restricts the application of a federal criminal law – especially if the government asks them to intervene. But the high court could also wait to see how other appeals courts handle similar cases and how well the Justice Department's program for restoring gun rights addresses these concerns, he said. The court could announce whether it will take up the issue this fall. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Guns or weed? Federal government says you can't use both. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Dem strategist expects Brown's U.S. Senate campaign to focus on Ohio workers
Former Ohio U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown (Photo from Brown's website.) Former Ohio U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown is back, officially announcing on Monday his long-anticipated campaign to reclaim a seat in Congress. Ohio Republicans are ready to fight. 'I didn't plan to run for office again, but when I see what's going on, I know I can do something about it for Ohio,' Brown said in his announcement. 'That's why I'm running for Senate. Because even in these challenging times, I still believe if you stand up for workers, treat people with respect and always fight for Ohio, you can actually make a difference.' Brown, who lost his seat in 2024 to Sen. Bernie Moreno, is returning to the political spotlight, and the stakes are high. 'Ohio could very well be the tipping point state for the entire Senate,' said Ohio Democratic strategist David Pepper. Ohio Democratic Party members, including Pepper, say that the senator's history of supporting workers will be key to his campaign. 'I think Sherrod's message, which really gets sort of the wherewithal of every Ohio family in a time where people are really struggling and stressed, I think it's gonna really hit home,' Pepper said. He will face off against Ohio Republican U.S. Sen. Jon Husted, whom President Donald Trump and the rest of the Ohio GOP, like party leader Tony Schroeder, are backing. 'Senator Husted's devotion to the conservative values that we just got done voting for, for President Trump last November, are going to wind up carrying the day,' Schroeder said. Husted was appointed to his role by Gov. Mike DeWine this January and has already raised $6 million. 'We just got done telling Senator Brown that we didn't want him to represent us in D.C. anymore, and we're about to do it again,' Schroeder said. 'He's carried every bit of the woke agenda in D.C. — the open border was a huge issue in Ohio, absolutely huge, and he voted for all of it.' Brown's campaign has already begun targeting Husted for his votes to make massive cuts to Medicaid and SNAP. Husted's team sent us this statement from spokesperson Tyson Shepard: 'Sherrod Brown's recent announcement means Ohioans will face a clear choice in 2026. For 30 years, he has imposed Washington's problems on Ohio, pushing radical liberal policies that have left a lasting burden on the next generation. Jon Husted offers the opposite approach, applying Ohio's values and solutions to fix a broken Washington. The challenges our nation faces are the same ones Husted has helped our state confront and overcome, championing the values he learned growing up in northwest Ohio: hard work, personal responsibility, family, faith, freedom and patriotism.' Even though Brown over-performed Democrats all over the country, including Kamala Harris by eight points in Ohio, he lost by four points to Moreno. Pepper was asked about Brown's 2024 loss and how he fixes it for 2026. 'I mean it's a combination of things,' Pepper said. 'if you ever lose, you don't say, 'Well, we should do everything the same.' Of course, the Trump turnout mattered. We clearly have to do better in our cities.' Follow WEWS statehouse reporter Morgan Trau on X and Facebook. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Democrats try to force nuns to pay for abortions. Sounds authoritarian to me.
Blue states like California and Pennsylvania refuse to leave the Little Sisters of the Poor alone – and couldn't care less about their religious beliefs. The Little Sisters of the Poor are back in the news. In case you've forgotten who they are and why they matter, let's briefly review what they're all about. According to the group's website, the Little Sisters' mission is to ensure that "the elderly and dying are cared for with love and dignity until God calls them home.' The Little Sisters work in 31 countries and began work in America in 1868. Today, the nuns operate about 20 homes in the United States. It's a lovely mission and one that they should be allowed to do in peace, free from interference from the government. No such luck, however. Blue states like California and Pennsylvania refuse to leave the Little Sisters alone and couldn't care less about their religious beliefs. Since the Obama administration's Affordable Care Act birth control mandate that required employers to provide contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs in their health insurance plans, the Little Sisters have been locked in a legal battle for the past 14 years. Despite clear wins for the nuns and religious liberty at the U.S. Supreme Court in 2016 and 2020, Democrats continue to persecute the Little Sisters. Will they ever stop? Will the Little Sisters have to make a third trip to the Supreme Court? That's 'absurd.' A federal district court in Philadelphia has revived the vindictive fight, siding with Pennsylvania and New Jersey against a 2017 Trump administration religious conscience rule, which offered the nuns and other religious groups protection from the mandate. Now, these states want the Little Sisters to offer contraception and abortion drugs or face millions of dollars in fines. 'The district court blessed an out-of-control effort by Pennsylvania and New Jersey to attack the Little Sisters and religious liberty,' Mark Rienzi, president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and lead attorney for the Little Sisters, said in a statement. 'It is absurd to think the Little Sisters might need yet another trip to the Supreme Court to end what has now been more than a dozen years of litigation over the same issue.' The Little Sisters will appeal this decision, but it truly is ridiculous that they must waste time fighting the government in this way, when all they want to do is serve people in need. And lest you think it's odd to be talking about nuns and contraception, the Little Sisters employ lay people who work as nurses, cooks and serve other roles in the group's homes for the elderly. The nuns don't want to be complicit in providing services that directly violate their deep belief in the sanctity of life, which guides their work. They shouldn't have to. There are other ways the government could provide contraceptives to these employees without pushing the nuns to do it. Progressives claim Trump is an authoritarian. They should look at themselves. For all the times we've been scolded about how Trump and his supporters are fascists and Nazis, progressives ought to take a hard look at themselves first. Democrats have decided their views on culture are the only ones that should matter, religious liberty be damned. Look at how liberal governments have gone after Catholic adoption agencies, Christian bakers, website designers and farmers and tried to force them to betray their faith just to participate in the public square. These are often yearslong court battles, much like the Little Sisters have undertaken. Thankfully, we have a strong First Amendment that protects our speech and religious freedom. And the Supreme Court keeps ruling on the side of protecting these essential liberties, which are promised in our Constitution. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, in writing the majority for the 2020 case, observed that the Little Sisters 'have had to fight for the ability to continue in their noble work without violating their sincerely held religious beliefs.' Five years later, the fight continues. It's time for Democrats to leave these nuns alone. Ingrid Jacques is a columnist at USA TODAY. Contact her at ijacques@ or on X: @Ingrid_Jacques
