The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Justice Thomas Had No Majority Opinion from October Sitting, But Still Wrote More Than Any Other Justice
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson may speak the most at oral argument, but Justice Thomas is writing more pages.
Allen v. Milligan was the last case to be decided from the Supreme Court's October sitting. There were only eight cases argued in that sitting, so only eight justices wrote majority opinions. Justice Thomas, the senior-most justice after Chief Justice Roberts, was the one justice left out.
While Justice Thomas did not author a majority opinion from the October sitting, he authored more pages from that sitting than any other justice and it is not particularly close. Justice Thomas wrote three opinions that spanned 95 pages. The next most prolific justice, in terms of page count, was Justice Kagan, who wrote 62 pages, followed by Justice Alito who wrote 52 pages. The two newest justices -- Barrett and Jackson --wrote the fewest pages from the October sitting, 13 and 23 respectively. The totals are indicated in the table below.
Justice Kavanaugh did not write nearly as many pages as Thomas, Kagan or Alito -- only 38 pages -- but he wrote the most separate opinions of any justice in cases from the October sitting. Indeed, he was the only justice to write an opinion in more than half of the cases.
There are several possible explanations for Justice Thomas not having a majority opinion from the October sitting, despite his seniority. One possibility is that he anticipates having a substantial assignment from the November sitting, which includes the two affirmative action cases. Another possibility is that he had the majority opinion in Allen v. Milligan and lost the majority to the Chief. The extent to which Thomas responds to the Chief's opinion in his dissent is consistent with the idea that there was lots of back-and-forth trying to convince wavering justices, as is the fact that Justice Thomas' opinion does not make much effort to accommodate the views of other justices (as shown by the fact that only one of the other dissenters joins the whole opinion).
Whatever the reason Justice Thomas did not have a majority from the October sitting, it has not resulted in less writing from Justice Thomas. Indeed, measured in terms of pages and separate writings, Justice Thomas is usually one of the more prolific justices on the Court, and there's no reason not to expect that pattern to hold this term.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Isn't the interesting part here the "no majority opinion" rather than the "wrote a lot"? Justice Thomas has always written lots of (solo) dissents.
Yeah, Adler's is an idiotic take. I assume the graphic appears elsewhere with a key, but I it seems that the different colors represent different cases. And Thomas wrote three opinions, with the aid of however many clerks he employs. That doesn't seem remarkable.
I can't read his mind as to why he wrote so much, but I know if I were a judge and felt free to spill out my theories without checking whether they were supported by precedent, I could write pages and pages and pages.
Or, you know, one of his clerks reads VC and thinks Rob Natelson is a credible source.
Who needs silly things like "precedent" or "history" or "the text of the Constitution" when you have Natelson telling you that because he thinks a semicolon was removed, everything you know is wrong!
I'm going to start writing law review articles like that.
13 Tips and Tricks To Pretending to Use Originalism While Advancing Your Own Policy Preferences: YOU WON'T BELIEVE NUMBER 4!
I clicked on that right away, but apparently the link is broken.
I think that Scalia bequeathed his ouija board to Thomas, so now Thomas can call
spirits from the vasty deepthe ghosts of the Founding fathers...I think capt is exactly right. Thomas needs to write less. He's a constitutional crank. Nobody with actual power cares about his theories or wants to adopt them, because they are impractical and a dumb way to run the government. He is an abject lesson of why our framers were correct to set up a common law system based on precedent- because the consensus of prior judges is infinitely more wise than Justice Thomas is. (And of course, the purported originalist/actual nihilist Thomas ignores that the framers he claims to worship wanted him to obey precedents.)
I always thought that, in the story of the Emperor's New Cloths, that little boy would have been dragged off and spanked, then they all would have gone on admiring the robes.
Thomas' fate is to be that little boy, in a more realistic version of the tale. Nobody with actual power cares about his theories, or wants to adopt them, because they mostly get in the way of enjoying that actual power, and what fun is being right if it means you have to give up some of your power?
Believing all precedents should be overturned is like the boy declaring everyone is naked no matter what. That boy is not a truth telling hero, he's a nut.
Believing some precedents are wrong and should be overruled or narrowed is well in keeping with the job of being a Justice.
100% certainty in all your opinions is how you get to cranksville, actually.
"Believing all precedents should be overturned is" not remotely Thomas' position. He thinks all wrong precedents should be overturned. Right ones? They're just fine.
That "ALL" is the key difference. The rest of the justices are weighing precedent against correctness, and disruption, and how big a deal the error is, and they're perfectly happy to uphold a mistake if that's the way the balance tilts.
Thomas thinks a precedent being in error is the end of the matter, you correct mistakes "though the heavens should fall".
I like that; He didn't swear an oath to precedent. None of them did, but he remembers that.
"“Believing all precedents should be overturned is” not remotely Thomas’ position. He thinks all wrong precedents should be overturned. Right ones? They’re just fine."
I can't even.
If that's the case, then "precedent" has no meaning. Literally! It's just "stuff that happened." All past Supreme Court decision might as well be from the European Commission on Human Rights- if Thomas thinks it is right, then it is persuasive and he will follow it. If he thinks it is wrong, then who cares, right?
The reason we have precedent isn't so that GodKing of Us All Thomas can determine what the law is and isn't everytime we come to beseech him with our problems, it's so that us mere mortal who don't have the magic eightball that he has our able to RELY on the past decisions of the court with a reasonable amount of certainty, without having to worry if one of his clerks has read a cool law review article recently.
Yeah, it's just "stuff that happened". That's his position on precedent, which is remarkably different from Sarcastr0's "all precedents should be overturned".
Again, that's not precedent. Like, words have meanings.
It's why ... when you're an attorney or judge and practicing the law, you have to worry about things like ... oh, presumptions. Or standard of review. Or precedent- and whether cases (PRECEDENT) is binding, and how binding, and why- vertical star decisis, horizontal stare decisis. Things like that!
And judges do this ALL THE TIME! It's how the legal system works.
We don't have individual GodKings that just decide, in every case, what they feel is the correct decision ab initio. Because then how could any person ever know how to organize their life around the law?
I'm not entirely sure why Thomas has abrogated to himself this power, previously unknown in the common law.
Thomas has done no such thing. You're just full of shit.
We don’t have individual GodKings that just decide, in every case, what they feel is the correct decision ab initio. Because then how could any person ever know how to organize their life around the law?
Sure we do. We've got two of them, Alito and Thomas. Having just two makes it even harder to know how to organize life around the law. You get all organized, and then get struck by lightning when one of those nuts gets the case.
After a half-century of judicial and administrative law precedent, Alito just wiped out half the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act. In doing it, he could not come up with any articulable reason which was consistent with both precedent and the facts of the case before him—but he knew he wanted less scope for the act.
Also, Alito and Thomas both make up history while pretending something or other about constraint. It has become impossible to imagine what notion of constraint they suppose they defer to.
First, as noted by loki 'all precedents I agree with can stay' is a logically nullity and you should have caught that.
You're making a binary out of judgement that is not how people should operate.
Confidence is not 0 and then 100. Having the humility to realize you're not that sure, and ceding in favor of past wisdom is not good, actually, and not upholding a mistake.
As if your favorite justices don't overturn precedents that they don't like.
Tell me another.
Other justices - ones I like and no - sometimes overturn precedent, but take some time to justify.
Overturning a precedent requires a good argument as to why it is wrong, not time.
Of course you recently claimed that I'd provided no argument as to why a previously declared and not Constitutionally-required "compelling interest" couldn't justify a Constitutionally injurious racial discrimination scheme, so your grasp of the word "argument" is clearly no constraint on anything you say.
Overturning a precedent requires a good argument as to why it is wrong, not time.
Unless you're Thomas.
Your second paragraph is gibberish.
No, it’s not. Your claim — that my argument that a “compelling interest” once declared could not possibly justify imposing a racial scheme that imposed unconstitutional injuries merely because there was no better scheme to achieve the desired end was mere ipse dixit — was absurd yesterday and your denial that you said it or somehow can’t understand what I’m talking about merely doubles down on your idiocy. And your dishonesty.
It’s your first sentence that is meaningless gibberish. If you’re Thomas it requires time and not a good argument? Do you have any idea what you even intended to mean? I don't.
You just kinda type things, eh?
Still a truth denier, eh? There's a word for that. Begins with L.
No. Overturning a precedent requires more than a good argument as to why it is wrong. "It's wrong" is just table stakes; if it weren't wrong, one wouldn't overturn it. It takes a good argument why it should be abandoned beyond it being wrong. For example: it has proven to be unworkable. Or new legal or factual developments have undermined its force.
Nieporent is right, but neglects to mention new developments in imaginary history and tradition.
Having the humility to realize you're not sure to be right does not actually imply that you have to sign on to positions you think are wrong. Do you not get that?
You take the position you think is right, in full awareness that you might be mistaken. But if you're not going to do what YOU think is right, what the hell is the point in having an opinion about what is right?
"what the hell is the point in having an opinion about what is right?"
Because opinions are like assholes, Brett. There's a ton of them (especially in the comments section here).
The whole point of the legal system is that judges don't just make their judgments on "what is right," but based on the law. And it's not just precedent. It's all sorts of things- heck, god forbid you ever learn about things like "the standard of review."
That works fine until you get judges that hold that the Due Process Clause was written to protect the right of the Rev. Kirkland to ejaculate into another man's rear.
What is wrong with you?
At least you make it easy to ignore.
As long as you support that type of Constitutional interpretation, you have no grounds to oppose anything I say.
You take the position you think is right
You're doing that binary thing again.
You're doing that unconvincing and unmoored pose-of-unearned-superiority thing again.
Juristocracy is preferable? That is what "common law judging" means, more or less, in any country with an entrenched constitution.
Thomas is himself a massive believer of juristocracy.
That might change after Court enlargement.
What, you gonna give the Court some Viagra? Some Spanish Fly? which will happen about the time you get your Commutation from S-S-S-S-S-tuttering J-J-J-J-ohn Fetterman,
i.e. "Never"
Frank
You've been banging that drum for a while now, Arthur. Do we need Sandra (formerly OBL) to dig out the relevant quote from you in March 2021 confidently predicting Supreme Court enlargement by date certain (which has since passed)?
When the Court is enlarged, I will enjoy a beer and think about how the culture war has made bigoted, superstitious right-wingers increasingly irrelevant in modern, improving-against-your-wishes America.
After that, I will piss on the grave of your stale, ugly political preferences.
You, in turn, will continue to comply with your betters' preferences, while clinging to your childish religious (absolute nonsense, suitable solely for the gullible) and old-timey intolerance.
Try to get through the rest of the culture war, Commenter_XY, as best you can until replacement. I know will continue to enjoy watching the liberal-libertarian mainstream shape our national progress against your wishes. You get to whine about it all you like, of course.
Now try to be nicer, but nothing requires your betters to be magnanimous in victory.
It's called kritarchy, and it's reality.
No, common law judging does not mean…justocracy? Do you think we were a justocracy until Eerie?
Is Originalism Our Law? William BaudeArticle III empowers judges to decide cases and implicitly requires them to follow the law in doing so, while Article VI confirms that the Constitution is a form of binding and supreme law. But an originalist must understand these provisions, as they were originally read, in the context of the common law.
An obvious and uncontroversial example of such a common-law rule is waiver. A judge is not required to adjudicate a constitutional claim if a party has not raised it. This is not because rules of waiver trump the Constitution, but rather because the Constitution itself asks judges to decide cases in the original way—subject to certain well-established common law principles
Since the progressive era began, it means the law is a one-way ratchet. Leftward.
How else do you get from Griswold (a contrived case about privacy within marriage, a common law concept) to Roe (a right to privacy for all)?
There's a third data point you seem to be missing. What happened to that one-way ratchet after Roe?
Fifty years of determined resistance to correcting blatant error.
Yes we know you opinion. Offering it with no support or argumentation remains fucking boring.
Go elsewhere to read Dobbs. It's a bit long to copy here
If nobody cares about what he writes, why would he need to write less? Seriously, why should it matter, that you need to tell him to stop writing?
Unless of course it does. Maybe like Scalia’s Morris v Olson dissent? Or going back alot further, Harlan’s Plessy dissent?
One never knows when history is going to catch up.
Exactly. Which supports a now entirely plausible supposition that Thomas writes so much because the Federalist Society is paying him handsomely by the word, to break new ground along a path to their aspirational judicial goals.
We've had a few constitutional cranks that dissent a lot:
"The real heavy dissenters historically were Justices Douglas, Harlan, Brennan and Marshall. Comparing the most dissents per Term since 1946, these Justices cover the top 31 most dissents per Term."
https://empiricalscotus.com/2016/06/22/king-of-dissents/
I'm have to say that their number of dissents haven't negatively impacted their reputations, but really I suppose it depends on where the court goes in the future that will decide whether Thomas is seen as a crank or a visionary.
And to me it seems like the court is headed more towards Thomas's originalism over precedent philosophy. Although it's a long row to hoe.
"Thomas's originalism..."
Hilarious!
Why wouldn't you write a lot more if you were dissenting? It's not like the majority opinion has it covered for you.
Would be nice to think that he got assigned writing the majority opinions in the racial discrimination cases. I find it hard to be confident of that after both Roberts and Kavanaugh just embraced racial gerrymandering, though.
I can't think of any important case where the CJ assigned the majority opinion to Thomas. And he's been there 31 years.
At least in my field Ohio v. American Express was a pretty big case.
(And wrongly decided, in that it made a hash of competition analysis in two-sided markets.)
And National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra (2018) was also a 5-4 with Roberts and Thomas both in the majority. Pre-Dobbs that case was a pretty big deal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_of_Family_and_Life_Advocates_v._Becerra
FWIW I think he will get Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard.
ASHCROFT v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION struck me as fairly important. But maybe that's just me.
Um, Bruen?
(What is wrong with you people and your myopia?)
Bruen seems destined to last about as long as Dobbs does.
Maybe you actually meant to say Roe?
Nowhere near as long as Roe. More like Dobbs.
Bruen was worthless, because they refuse to stop the lower courts that are ignoring it. And the drunk Irish Catholic Kavanagh is happy to allow a "variety of gun regulation."
Bruen should have been one paragraph:
"Shall not be infringed" means exactly what it says. Every state and federal law that regulates guns in any manner must fall.
How many has he assigned to you?
Bruen comes to mind. And Bruen was huge.
Unless Roberts was originally in the minority and Thomas brought him around, but that seems unlikely.
Least. Surprising. News. Ever.
Justice Thomas heard the quote about the Supreme Court, which is that the most valuable skill is being able to count to five, and said, "I don't believe in that precedent. So ... how about one?"
This.
I'm reminded of a character in a novel I read once, who explaining why they were doing something futile, said, "I'd rather have my horse shot out from under me, than shoot him myself."
I think Thomas' attitude is something like that: Maybe he's got to lose most of them, but that doesn't mean he has to pretend he agreed with the winning side.
The objection here isn’t just that Thomas isn’t garnering a majority, it’s that he’s not willing to work with his present colleagues, or consider past precedent.
That’s not taking a noble stand, it’s failing to function as a part of the institution you’re ostensibly and important part of.
And I say that thinking he has the sharpest statutory interpretation mind on the Court. When writing for the Court, his opinions have a bulldog-like directness that isn't half bad.
When do other judges follow precedent that they strongly disagree with? They don’t. Thomas, unlike the others, just says that he does not.
That strongly....
By your analysis, Thomas 'strongly' disagrees with *all* precedents. That's a lot of strongly!
No, he strongly disagrees with all precedents he thinks are wrong. I can't figure out why you'd think he disagrees with precedents he thinks were correctly decided.
No, Brett, he strongly disagrees with all precedents. He doesn't think the concept should exist.
How are you missing this?
I'm 'missing that' because I understand the English language, and "he strongly disagrees with all precedents" does not mean what you seem to think.
It would be more accurate to say that he doesn't care about all precedents. Disagreeing with all precedents would require him to want to mindlessly overturn prior rulings he thinks were correctly decided!
Is English your second language, maybe?
That's an aggressively dumb take. Thomas doesn't believe that past error is controlling, but not that the analyses in precedents can't be compelling. He disagrees with your benighted idea as to the proper function of precedent, not "with all precedents."
I'm only into this thing when it has no effect on me is not being into the thing at all, Brett.
Disagreeing with all precedents would require him to want to mindlessly overturn prior rulings he thinks were correctly decided!
The substance of the underlying case is not the same as it's precedential force!!
Gandydancer, persuasive authority is not precedential; that's just words.
No Brett, the concept isn’t that hard. When Justice Thomas agrees with the outcome of an earlier case, it’s because he believes it correct, not because agrees with precedent.
Thus, he considers any established precedent an irrelevancy unworthy of any consideration. Thus rejecting even the concept of precedent, he effectively disagrees all precedents are precedent, including the coincidentally correct ones.
Now THERE’s a real example of “just words”. When Justice Thomas agrees with the outcome of an earlier case it’s because he believes it correct AND he may affirm its value as precedent because its reasoning is insightful. If it’s garbage then it’s garbage.
You aren’t too bright, are ya?
Certainly you haven’t read many Thomas dissents.
Gaslightr0 thinks he came up with something cutting, but the sharpest knife in the drawer he’s not and no one believes he is..
Go back and read Dickerson v. US and tell me whether Rehnquist agreed with Miranda.
Or read Whole Women's Health and tell me if Roberts believed that TRAP laws were unconstitutional.
Obviously stare decisis is not perfect, but the notion that it has no weight is one that ONLY Thomas holds- and he's wrong, infinitely less smart than he thinks he is in taking the position, and failing in his judicial oath as well as in the practical role of the Court when he acts on it.
Quote to us where the judicial oath commits Thomas to slavishly obey bad precedent.
The only things the Thomases slavishly obey are Harlan Crow and that sweet, sweet hidden cash-and-goodies fountain.
The part about obeying the Constitution.
And where does the CONSTITUTION say Thomas must slavishly obey bad precedent?
A bit stronger than I’d put it but:
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court.
The judicial powers contemporary to the Founders relied on stare decisis.
Thomas doesn’t. He’s not doing his Constitutionally defined job.
Go farther Sarc. All cases in law and equity. What system of law does that phrase refer to?
You two keep failing. Spectacularly. Neither “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court” nor the “All cases in law and equity” fragment require slavishly obeying bad precedents.
The Constitution doesn't require that. The body of written law doesn't require that. The common law does not require that. Thomas's Oath of Office does not require that. And YOU wouldn't attempt to require that if you didn't want to keep the bad precedents that Thomas rightly recognizes as garbage incompatible with the actual law it is his duty to interpret correctly.
After at least a half-century of getting their asses kicked by their betters, one might think our nation's remaining right-wing culture war losers would stop talking about how their betters are "failing."
You get to whine about it as much as you like, Gandydancer, but you, the Volokh Conspirators, and the rest of the bitter clingers will spend the rest of your deplorable lives complying with the preferences of your betters. Then, your betters will replace you and drive conservative bigotry and superstition into irrelevance in modern America. That's the American way.
Gandy doesn't know what the judicial power is.
Not surprised.
Well Judge Thomas IS a minority.
And I thought the “Clerks” did all of the real “Writing” anyway, shouldn’t it be “Justice Thomas’s Clerks Had No Majority Opinions from October Sitting, But They Still Wrote More Than Any Other Justice’s Clerks”
Frank
A key to the color coding for the chart in the article would be nice.
Thomas is the greatest Justice of our time.
Are you really asking us to imagine that you don’t feel free to spill out your crap without checking whether it is supported by evidence? That is contrary to is seen by our lying eyes. As is your assertion about Thomas’ opinions.
This was a reply to Martinned, but got misplaced when I had to reboot the router.
That’s a lot to extrapolate from a single month with just 8 cases. But since there are numbers, charts and graphs shown, what can I say? With numbers, charts and graphs, it really must be completely reliable and show us how the court works generally.
The Science (tm)!
Although, this chart could have been Better (tm) - the numbers would have been much bigger if he'd counted words written, instead of pages.
Thoughts in no particular order or way relevant:
Thin stacks of chips on the outer wings of the bench=comparatively less relevant cases assigned to the outer wings due to their being less relevant. Layup practice in the top-floor gym.
The left side of the X axis = more likely to control the assigning of opinions for majority and principal dissents (most likely to be substantial works). So where a thick stack of chips appears on the left, it's likely a reserved opinion, where on the right, an assigned one. (Source data would of course reveal this.) The junior division mostly comes in with one thick stack apiece, which might reflect some institutional judgement about the strengths of newbie chambers.
Assuming that's the case, and the constraint is that there aren't enough Bartelbys and Bob Cratchits beavering away in chambers, it perhaps makes sense that a justice in the senior division who had strong feelings about certain cases would be more likely to write those rather than the majority opinions retained (i.e., not farmed out) by more pragmatic judges.
Mr. D.