Jun 24, 2010

Posted in Uncategorized

Justice Thomas is Author of 40% of the Lone Dissents in 8-1 Opinions Over Last 4 Terms


Today in Doe v. Reed, Justice Thomas stood as the only Justice willing to find the disclosure of the names unconstitutional.. Another 8-1 Constitutional Decision, with Justice Thomas again the lone dissenter.

This is a trend. Over the last 4 terms, Justice Thomas has been the author of ten out of a total twenty-five 8-1 (and 7-1 in the case of recusals) opinions. At 40%, that is far more than any other justice. Justice Thomas is known as the most principled Justice, and the numbers seem to bear this out. He is the least willing to compromise, and most willing to stand up for his beliefs.

Here is the breakdown:

October 2009 Term

During the October 2009 term, there have been (to date) six 8-1 opinions. Thomas dissented in Doe v. Reed. Although not in dissent, this term in Citizens United v. FEC, Justice Thomas was the only Justice willing to strike down the disclosure requirements of the campaign finance reform laws.

October 2008 Term

During the October 2008 term, there were four 8-1 opinions. In three of those cases, Justice Thomas was the only dissenter. In NAMUDNO, Justice Thomas was the only Justice willing to strike down provisions of the voting rights act. Also in Safford United School District #1 v. Redding, Justice Thomas was the only Justice to find that strip-searching a student at a public school in search of drugs was constitutional. In Negusie v. Mukasey, Thomas was the only Justice that found that an asylum law clearly bars asylum for anyone who harmed others in the home country.

October 2007 Term

During the October 2007 term, there were six 8-1 opinions. Justice Thomas dissented in 4 of these cases. In Preston v. Ferrer. In a 4-sentence dissent, Justice Thomas wrote, “As I have stated on many previous occasions, I believe that the Federal Arbitration Act … does not apply to proceedings in state courts.” Justice Thomas also dissented in Gonzalez v. US, finding that the Federal Magistrates Act does not authorize district judges to delegate felony jury selection to magistrate judges. In Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, Thomas concurred in part and dissented in part, refusing to side with the employees because he does not believe the ADEA permits disparate impact claims at all. In Rothgery v. Gillespie County, Thomas again was the lone dissenter, finding that neither the original meaning of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel nor our precedents interpreting the scope of that right supports the Court’s holding that the right attaches at an initial appearance before a magistrate.

October 2006 Term

During the October 2006 term, there seven 8-1 cases and two 7-1 cases. Thomas dissented in two out of the nine cases. In Medimmune v. Genentech, Thomas was the lone dissenter. In Lopez v. Gonzales, again Justice Thomas was the only dissenter.

Print Friendly
Share
  • http://www.devinetoursrome.com Charles Collins

    I wish there was a way for Thomas to run for President without giving up his seat on the court.

    • Josh Blackman

      There is nothing unconstitutional about the same person serving in an Article II and Article III capacity. However, a person cannot serve in an Article I and Article II office. Thomas could run for President while serving as Justice. Remember, John Marshall served as Chief Justice while serving as Adams’s Secretary of State.

  • http://Website steve rappoport

    I did not realize that. But Wikipedia states: “Marshall was Chief Justice of the United States, serving from January 31, 1801, until his death in 1835. He served in the United States House of Representatives from March 4, 1799, to June 7, 1800, and was Secretary of State under President John Adams from June 6, 1800, to March 4, 1801.”

    If this is correct, for one day he served in both an Article I and an Article II capacity.

    • Josh Blackman

      Hmmm. It seems on June 6, 1800 John Marshall was both a representative in the House and the Secretary of State. I wonder what time the House adjourned and what time he began working as Secretary of State?

  • http://Website steve rappoport

    Is it not interesting that early practice in the new Republic did not always accord with modern-era thought? How could the Alien and Sedition Acts be adopted? Who counted as a citizen (and how was citizenship determined)? And this oops moment, among other things.

    BTW, I have been pondering the concept of state citizenship, and I think that it means domicile. States had and have no way to decide who should live in them; people who live in a state have rights, but the state has no power over them save through generally applicable laws. Yes?

    • Josh Blackman

      Steve, excellent thought. I just wrote a new blog post about it, and will e-mail some people in the know. http://joshblackman.com/blog/?p=4722

      As for your question about state citizenship, I am doing some research, so I’ll hold off on an opinion for now.

  • Pingback: Was John Marshall Unconstitutional?

  • Pingback: Friday round-up | theConstitutional.org