Clarence Thomas and His Stance on Individual Rights

Clarence Thomas has dedicated his career to advocating for a legal framework that treats individuals as just that—individuals. He clearly expresses that he wants to be evaluated on his own merits, not categorized by race, gender, or ethnicity. It seems that his fellow justices are catching on to this principle.

Thomas’ commitment to individual rights goes back even before his tenure on the Supreme Court. An example of this can be traced to 1985, when he reflected on his role enacting civil rights laws as chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. He asserted, “I plan to restore EEO enforcement to its original purpose: defending the rights of those harmed by discriminatory actions.” He emphasized that the principles of equal opportunity should include addressing the intersection of civil rights and individual experiences.

In more than thirty years on the Supreme Court, Thomas has continually reiterated that the law safeguards individual rights, not those of groups. A notable moment came in 1995 during Missouri vs. Jenkins, when he boldly criticized the landmark Brown vs. Board of Education case from 1954. He labeled the enforced separation of students as “despicable,” expressing regret for relying on social science evidence to declare segregation unconstitutional. Instead, he suggested it should have been framed around the constitutional principle that treats each person as an individual, separate from their racial or ethnic identities.

In various judicial opinions, Thomas has made similar points. His concurring opinion in a 2007 case involving Seattle School District No. 1 serves as a strong statement on his vision of equality among citizens.

Just recently, in the Supreme Court’s decision for 2023, Thomas noted that universities need to acknowledge the social and economic challenges faced by his race yet argued assertively that every individual deserves equal treatment under the law. He expressed a mix of hope and struggle in dealing with discrimination, underscoring the idea of unity despite differing backgrounds.

Last week’s ruling in Ames v. Ohio Youth Services suggests that advocates of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) must confront the reality of legal compliance. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of the court’s more liberal justices, pointed out that a so-called “background situation” rule too often imposed by lower courts misaligns with Title VII definitions pertaining to discrimination.

Jackson’s opinion, which overturned a lower court’s ruling, could nearly echo Justice Thomas’s own sentiments. She referenced Title VII, which prohibits adverse employment actions against individuals, and also included the principle established in the 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County case. Interestingly, Thomas joined Jackson’s opinion completely but also released a separate concurrence that critiqued the background situation rule for being inconsistent with both statutory texts and the constitutional right to equal protection. He responded directly to advocates of DEI initiatives, cautioning them that their agenda should not be conflated with the legal expectations set forth by the Supreme Court.

Following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016, many contemplated who would stand as the conservative intellectual leader on the court. Thomas has certainly embraced that role. In the Ames case, even Jackson’s liberal perspective aligns with his core view that American jurisprudence should prioritize the rights of individuals over those of groups.