Clarence Thomas will reach a notable longevity milestone on the U.S. Supreme Court this week, moving into the position of the second-longest-serving justice in the court’s history. Now 77 years old, Thomas has been on the bench since October 1991, when he was appointed at age 43 by Republican President George H.W. Bush to succeed Thurgood Marshall, the liberal luminary and civil-rights pioneer who was the first Black member of the court. Following a contentious confirmation process, Thomas became the second Black justice on the bench.
The Supreme Court Historical Society notes several tenure benchmarks Thomas will cross this week and later this month. On Monday he will pass Justice Stephen J. Field, who served from 1863 to 1897, moving into the court’s third-longest tenure. Later this week he will eclipse his late former colleague Justice John Paul Stevens, who served from 1975 to 2010, to become the second-longest-serving justice. And if Thomas remains in his seat until May 20, 2028, he would surpass Justice William O. Douglas, who served from 1939 to 1975, to claim the court’s all-time longevity record.
A sustained imprint on the law
Over three decades on the high court, Thomas has exerted a consistent conservative influence, even as his tactics and degree of prominence have changed. Law professor Haley Proctor, who clerked for Thomas, observed that he often began his tenure in frequent dissent but "stood his ground." She added: "The justice’s influence on the law has been profound. And that is a consequence, not only of his many years on the court, but also of his persistence."
Thomas has been central to decisions that have steered the court to a more assertively conservative posture since the current 6-3 conservative majority formed in 2020. In June 2022 he authored a major ruling that expanded gun rights under the Second Amendment and, on consecutive days that month, joined fellow conservative justices in overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 precedent that had provided a nationwide constitutional right to abortion.
Beyond those headline rulings, Thomas has consistently advocated positions that reflect an expansive view of religious liberty, opposition to gay marriage, rejection of affirmative action in university admissions and hiring, support for the death penalty and broad presidential powers, and limits on campaign-finance restrictions. Legal scholars who analyze the court’s recent trajectory have described Thomas as a force pushing for sweeping changes in constitutional law.
"Justice Thomas is the most radically conservative justice to serve on the Supreme Court in modern times," said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. "I say this because in addition to being conservative he has taken positions that would dramatically change the law that the court never has accepted."
Chemerinsky pointed to several areas where Thomas favors overturning established precedents, including decisions that blocked laws against contraceptives and gay sex. He also cited Thomas’s apparent desire to curtail protections for press freedom and to roll back precedent requiring states to provide defense counsel to defendants who cannot afford lawyers. Chemerinsky added that in some domains Thomas has effected change, noting the Second Amendment ruling, the decision overturning Roe v. Wade, and the end to affirmative action in certain contexts. "But in most places his calls for a radical change in a conservative direction have not gained support from a majority of the court," Chemerinsky said.
Consistency, loyalty and courtroom style
Those who have worked with Thomas note a strong sense of loyalty among his clerks and staff. Ken Masugi, a fellow at the conservative Claremont Institute who previously served as an advisor at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission when Thomas was in government, said Thomas inspires devotion among those around him, including former clerks who have gone on to federal judgeships. "One notices that his clerks are incredibly loyal to him, even the ones who disagree with him," Masugi said. "That’s proof of the influence he has on the people within the court."
Thomas was a federal appellate judge when nominated to the Supreme Court. The Senate confirmed him on a 52-48 vote following a bitter confirmation battle in which law professor Anita Hill, a former subordinate at the EEOC, accused him of sexual harassment. Thomas denied the allegation. Joe Biden, then a senator who chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee during those hearings, was involved in the proceedings that Thomas denounced in strong terms, calling them "a high-tech lynching for uppity Blacks." Thomas told senators: "It is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order ... you will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree."
Observers say Thomas’s blunt public remarks reflect long-held convictions and sometimes continued resentment of the confirmation process. At a speech on April 15 at the University of Texas, Thomas characterized progressivism as a political philosophy that threatens the country and the founding principles of the 18th century. He said progressivism "seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence, and hence our form of government. It holds that our rights and our dignities come not from God, but from government. It requires of the people a subservience and weakness incompatible with a Constitution premised on the transcendent origin of our rights."
American University law professor Stephen Wermiel said of Thomas: "I understand that he’s a very gregarious guy and that people at the court like him, but he does often come across as sort of an angry, bitter justice. There are times when you feel like he’s still not over the Anita Hill episode, and still has a kind of simmering anger about that."
Long-held positions and shifting court practice
Thomas’s jurisprudence has shown a willingness to revisit and sometimes overturn precedents he regards as erroneous. Early in his Supreme Court career, in 1992, Thomas joined a dissent arguing that abortion policy should be left to states and that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. In 1995 he wrote a concurring opinion criticizing affirmative action programs, asserting they foster a belief that racial minorities cannot compete without assistance. Many of the positions Thomas took decades ago have since become part of the court’s legal framework.
Ralph Rossum, a professor at Claremont McKenna College who has written about Thomas, said: "If Thomas believes there were bad precedents set in the past, he doesn’t feel any fidelity to them." That posture helps explain the force of his dissents and his readiness to press the court to alter long-standing doctrine.
Thomas also abandoned one striking personal habit. For roughly the first 30 years of his tenure he rarely asked questions during oral arguments - a rarity on the modern court. That pattern changed when the court conducted teleconference arguments during the public-health disruptions of 2020, and he has since been a regular questioner.
The prospect of continued service
Now approaching 78 - Thomas’s birthday is June 23 - he has given no public indication that he plans to step down. President Donald Trump, who would have the opportunity to name another justice if a vacancy occurs, has said he hopes Thomas and fellow conservative Justice Samuel Alito, 76, remain on the bench. Some observers note that setting a longevity record may hold personal significance for Thomas. Wermiel commented: "It’s hard for me to imagine that becoming the longest-serving justice is not of some importance to him."
Thomas himself has previously signaled an expectation of a long tenure. In a 2019 appearance at Pepperdine University, he was asked what he might say at his retirement party two decades hence. "But I’m not retiring," Thomas told the interviewer. When asked, "Not in 20 years?" he responded, "No." And on the follow-up question, "Not in 30 years?" he again replied, "No."
Where Thomas’s influence has mattered - and where it has not
Thomas has been a key figure in shaping rulings that affect constitutional interpretations on matters ranging from the Second Amendment to reproductive rights, affirmative action and executive authority. In some instances, his views have become law through majority opinions that he authored or joined. In others, his more radical proposals for constitutional change have not persuaded a majority of his colleagues.
The recent trajectory of the court underlines how a justice’s long tenure and persistent positions can gradually shift legal doctrine. Whether Thomas ultimately sets the court’s longevity record or chooses to remain until a later date, his role in defining the court’s conservative posture over the past several decades is firmly established in the record of decisions and public statements.
As the court continues to address questions that bear on public policy and private rights, Thomas’s past and ongoing contributions will be part of the framework within which colleagues, lower courts and litigants approach constitutional disputes.