Last week, Clarence Thomas became the second-longest serving justice in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court. If he remains on the bench through 2028, he will surpass the Franklin D. Roosevelt-appointed William O. Douglas as the longest-serving justice of them all.
You’re reading Injustice System from Damon Root and Reason. Get more of Damon’s commentary on constitutional law and American history.
Like it or not, Thomas will also go down in the books as one of the most influential justices in SCOTUS history. “In one big case after another, from the expansion of gun rights to the elimination of the constitutional right to abortion, Thomas’ long-held views either commanded or inspired the majority of the Court.” I wrote those words about the Supreme Court’s 2021–2022 term, which included such momentous decisions as New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen and Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
Thomas’ impact on the current SCOTUS term has been a little more uneven, at least so far. While his longstanding hostility towards a broad reading of the Voting Rights Act was reflected in Louisiana v. Callais, his embrace of broad executive power was rejected in Learning Resources v. Trump, prompting Thomas to pen a bitter and deeply misguided dissent. As of this writing, there are still 11 big cases left to be decided in the Court’s 2025–2026 term, so the full impact of Thomas’ jurisprudence on those important disputes remains to be seen.
Currently sitting behind Thomas in the number three spot on the list of longest-serving Supreme Court justices is an Abraham Lincoln appointee named Stephen Field. There are certain interesting parallels between Field and Thomas. Perhaps the most notable of which is that they both spent most of their SCOTUS careers writing in dissent. Indeed, Field just barely remained on the bench long enough to see his signature constitutional vision accepted by the majority. But accepted it was, and to lasting effect. Field’s 1873 dissent in The Slaughter-House Cases was basically adopted by the Supreme Court in 1897 and then further embraced in 1905’s Lochner v. New York, a landmark case with many far-reaching impacts. Field’s career is thus a testament to the fact that a future Supreme Court always can, and sometimes will, overrule a past Supreme Court’s “settled” decisions.
A similar dynamic has been happening in recent years with Thomas. From guns to abortion to affirmative action, many of Thomas’ formerly dissenting views are now reflected in majority opinions. Like Field before him, Thomas will have an influence that is felt long after he is gone from the bench.
You may have heard about a viral social media post written by ace Supreme Court lawyer Neal Katyal. In it, Katyal, who presented the winning oral arguments in the case against President Donald Trump’s tariffs, credited the use of artificial intelligence as part of his preparation for that big SCOTUS showdown. Katyal’s tweet quickly sparked a big debate among legal professionals over the use of AI in their work. Katyal’s bragging tone also raised a number of disapproving eyebrows. “Five months ago, I argued against the President’s $4 trillion tariffs at the Supreme Court,” Katyal posted on X. “In 237 years, the Court had never struck down a sitting President’s signature initiative. Legal scholars said it was impossible. Some of my own colleagues said it was impossible. We won. 6-3.” The legal commentator David Lat has written a very handy summary of the whole brouhaha, and in his judgment, Katyal’s post was “Supremely Cringe.”
I don’t have much to add to the discussion except to note that Katyal may have overstated the historic nature of his victory. In 1935, the Supreme Court unanimously struck down the National Industrial Recovery Act in the case of Schechter Poultry Co. v. United States. Passed in 1933, the National Industrial Recovery Act was the centerpiece of the New Deal, hailed by President Franklin Roosevelt himself as “the most important and far-reaching legislation ever enacted by the American Congress.” So I don’t think it would be too much to say that the Supreme Court also struck down that “sitting president’s signature initiative.”
