Clarence Thomas's Five Opinions Show His Constitutional Fidelity and Defense of Liberty Across 35 Years on the Court
Source: Shawn Fleetwood. "5 Clarence Thomas Opinions To Mark His 35 Years At SCOTUS." October 23, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author picks five Clarence Thomas opinions to celebrate his 35 years on the Supreme Court. Each is presented as an example of Thomas defending the Constitution and individual rights, whether on guns, race, property, medical experts, or citizenship. The piece is a tribute, so it assumes the reader already agrees with Thomas's reasoning.
Conclusion
Justice Clarence Thomas's opinions in Bruen, Students for Fair Admissions, Kelo, Skrmetti, and Trump v. Barbara are among his greatest writings, and they show that over 35 years he has faithfully upheld the Constitution and Americans' God-given rights.
Premises
- In Bruen, Thomas wrote for the majority that the Second Amendment protects public carry for self-defense and is not a second-class right, since no other constitutional right requires showing a special need to exercise it.
- In Students for Fair Admissions, Thomas's concurrence argued that the Constitution requires equal treatment regardless of race, and that racial preferences in admissions merely trade one form of discrimination for another.
- In Kelo, Thomas dissented on originalist grounds, arguing that broad 'public purpose' takings depart from the Public Use Clause's original meaning and fall hardest on poor, politically powerless communities.
- In Skrmetti, Thomas's concurrence argued that courts should not defer to self-described experts in areas of scientific uncertainty, and that such questions belong to the people and their elected representatives.
- In Trump v. Barbara, Thomas's 91-page dissent argued from the historical and legal record that the Citizenship Clause does not grant birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens and birth tourists, and that the majority's holding devalues citizenship.
Assumptions
- Originalist and textualist interpretation is the correct way to read the Constitution
- The outcomes Thomas reached are the correct readings of the Constitution, not merely conservative policy preferences
- Opinions that match the author's political values count as 'greatest' and as upholding the Constitution
- Five cases are representative of Thomas's overall judicial record
- Judicial deference to expert consensus is inappropriate when the science is contested
- Longevity and a high volume of opinions reflect merit, not just tenure