Justice Clarence Thomas Influences SCOTUS to Shift Away from DEI Policies

Throughout his professional journey, Clarence Thomas has championed the idea that American law should uphold the foundational promise of the Declaration of Independence. This promise advocates for individuals to be evaluated based on their personal merits rather than their affiliations with racial, gender, or ethnic groups. Remarkably, his colleagues on the Supreme Court appear to be resonating with Thomas’s perspective.

Thomas’s commitment to individual rights predates his ascension to the Supreme Court. In a 1985 law review article, he elaborated on his responsibilities as Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, emphasizing the imperative to enforce civil rights laws. He stated, “I intend to take EEO enforcement back to where it started by defending the rights of individuals harmed by discriminatory practices. Those who argue that the principle of equal opportunity equates with giving preferences to certain groups have forsaken their roles as moral leaders in this critical area.”

Challenging Established Norms in Judiciary History

Justice Thomas has consistently reiterated that American law is designed to protect the rights of individuals rather than groups. A significant moment of this advocacy occurred in the landmark case of Missouri v. Jenkins in 1995. Here, Thomas became the first justice to openly critique the decision in Brown v. Board of Education from 1954. While he denounced state-mandated segregation as “despicable,” he argued that the Court’s reliance on questionable social science to declare segregation unconstitutional was misguided. Instead, he emphasized a constitutional principle that mandates the government to treat citizens as individuals rather than as members of specific groups.

In many of his judicial opinions, Justice Thomas has advocated for a colorblind interpretation of the Constitution. His concurring opinion in the 2007 case of Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 serves as a powerful declaration of this belief. He remarked, “The dissent attempts to marginalize the notion of a colorblind Constitution by consigning it to me and the Members of today’s plurality. I am quite comfortable with the company I keep. My understanding of the Constitution aligns with Justice Harlan’s view in Plessy: ‘Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.’”

Recent Rulings Signal a Shift

More recently, Justice Thomas emphasized his views in the 2023 Supreme Court rulings concerning college admissions. He articulated the need for adherence to the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, stating, “While I am painfully aware of the social and economic ravages which have befallen my race and all who suffer discrimination, I hold out enduring hope that this country will live up to its principles: that all men are created equal and must be treated equally before the law.”

Last week’s decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services further underscores the challenges that proponents of diversity, equity, and inclusion, often referred to as DEI, will face in ensuring compliance with the law. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of the Court’s more liberal justices, authored a unanimous opinion that rejected the “background circumstances” rule imposed by certain lower courts. This rule required members of a majority group to meet a heightened evidential standard in Title VII discrimination claims, which Jackson labeled inconsistent with the law’s text and the Court’s previous anti-discrimination decisions.

A Shared Vision on Individual Rights

Justice Jackson’s opinion closely mirrored Thomas’s own views. She reiterated that Title VII prohibits adverse employment actions against “any individual,” insisting that the law’s focus on individuals excludes the possibility of imposing additional demands on majority-group plaintiffs. Jackson quoted the 2020 Supreme Court decision, Bostock v. Clayton County, affirming that the law’s focus on individuals, rather than groups, is far from an academic discussion.

Justice Thomas endorsed Jackson’s opinion in full while contributing a concurring opinion that underscored his belief that the “background circumstances” rule contradicts the statutory text of Title VII and the Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection. He cautioned proponents of DEI that they cannot dismiss the implications of the Ames decision on their initiatives. Thomas articulated that American employers have displayed a long-standing obsession with DEI programs and affirmative action, noting that such initiatives frequently lead to overt discrimination against those perceived to belong to the majority.

The Future of DEI Initiatives in American Law

As the legal landscape continues to evolve, Justice Thomas’s unwavering commitment to individual rights positions him as a formidable voice against group-based preferences in American law. His perspectives have resonated throughout his tenure, influencing not only judicial opinions but also public discourse surrounding civil rights and equality.

The Supreme Court’s recent rulings suggest a potential shift in how DEI practices will be implemented by American institutions. As courts begin to prioritize individual rights over group identities, organizations may need to reassess their DEI frameworks to conform to an evolving legal standard. This development marks a significant turning point in U.S. jurisprudence, where the emphasis on the individual could reshape the future of civil rights practices.

Justice Thomas’s steadfast belief that the Constitution demands a colorblind approach to law reinforces the idea that equality should be the bedrock of any legal framework. This interpretation remains crucial in navigating the complex landscape of civil rights legislation in the contemporary era.