Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

As Clarence Thomas hits a milestone, his conservative stamp on US Supreme Court endures

Clarence Thomas this week will reach a major milestone on the U.S. Supreme Court, becoming the second-longest-serving justice in American history. Along the way, the stalwart conservative has played an important role in guiding the court on a rightward course, even if he has not gotten everything he has advocated. Thomas, who is 77, has served since October 1991, having been appointed at age 43 by Republican President George H.W. Bush to replace liberal luminary and civil-rights pioneer Thurgood Marshall on the top U.S. judicial body. Marshall was the first Black member of the court. Thomas, after a contentious Senate confirmation battle, became the second. Thomas on May 4 will overtake Justice Stephen J. Field, who served from 1863 to 1897, for the court's third-longest tenure, according to the Supreme Court Historical Society. Thomas on May 7 will leapfrog his late former colleague Justice John Paul Stevens, who served from 1975 to 2010, for the second-longest tenure, the society said. If Thomas remains until May 20, 2028, he would set the court's longevity record, passing Justice William O. Douglas, who served from 1939 to 1975, the society said. PROFOUNDLY INFLUENTIAL Thomas has left his mark on the Supreme Court, even as his role has evolved over the years. "He began his time on the court often in dissent, and he stood his ground," said Haley Proctor, a University of Notre Dame law professor who previously served as a clerk for Thomas. "The justice's influence on the law has been profound," Proctor said. "And that is a consequence, not only of his many years on the court, but also of his persistence." Thomas has helped the court's 6-3 conservative majority, in place since 2020, to act assertively. On back-to-back days in June 2022, he was the author of a landmark ruling expanding gun rights protected by the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment and joined other conservative justices in overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that had legalized abortion nationwide. Thomas also has championed an expansive view of religious liberty, opposed gay marriage, fought affirmative action preferences for minorities in university admissions and hiring, supported the death penalty and broad presidential powers, and curbed campaign-finance restrictions. "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 noted, among other things, that Thomas favors overturning Supreme Court precedents that have blocked laws against contraceptives and gay sex. Chemerinsky also pointed to the justice's desire to end key protections for freedom of the press and his criticism of the court's precedent that required states to provide defense lawyers to criminal defendants who cannot afford to hire one. "In some areas, he succeeded in changing the law, such as the Second Amendment, overruling Roe v. Wade and ending affirmative action," Chemerinsky said. "But in most places his calls for a radical change in a conservative direction have not gained support from a majority of the court." Thomas and the other conservative justices have let Republican President Donald Trump implement a series of policies impeded by lower courts that faulted their legality. When the court handed Trump a rare setback in February by rejecting his sweeping global tariffs, Thomas was one of three conservative justices who dissented, and the president lavished praise on him. A SENSE OF LOYALTY Ken Masugi, a fellow at the conservative Claremont Institute think tank, said Thomas engenders a sense of loyalty in those who work with him, especially his former law clerks, several of whom have since become federal judges. Before his Supreme Court tenure, Thomas hired Masugi as an advisor at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC. "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 serving as a federal appellate judge when Bush nominated him to a lifetime job on the Supreme Court. The Senate confirmed Thomas on a 52-48 vote after a confirmation battle during which he was accused of sexual harassment by a law professor named Anita Hill, a former subordinate of his at the EEOC. Thomas denied the allegation. Future President Joe Biden, a Democrat, was the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee during the confirmation hearings that Thomas denounced as "a high-tech lynching for uppity Blacks." Thomas told the 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." Thomas continues to be blunt in public remarks. On April 15 at the University of Texas, Thomas called progressivism a political philosophy that poses an existential threat to the United States and its 18th-century founding principles. Thomas 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, "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." 'BAD PRECEDENTS' Bush's other Supreme Court appointee, Justice David Souter, surprised conservatives by evolving into a reliable member of its liberal wing. Thomas, on the other hand, became a darling of conservatives, even if his contributions sometimes were overshadowed by his contemporary conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in 2016. In 1992, his first full year on the court, Thomas joined a dissent arguing that abortion access should be decided on the state level, and that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. It was the first of many times Thomas showed no reservations about overturning major precedents. In 1995, Thomas wrote a concurring opinion denouncing affirmative action programs, saying they foster a belief that racial minorities cannot compete without help. Now, decades later, these positions have been enshrined in Supreme Court precedent. "If Thomas believes there were bad precedents set in the past, he doesn't feel any fidelity to them," said Ralph Rossum, a professor at Claremont McKenna College who wrote a book on Thomas. And Thomas has abandoned one of his idiosyncrasies. For his first nearly three decades on the court, he rarely posed questions during oral arguments in cases. That changed when the court began hearing arguments by teleconference in 2020 during the COVID pandemic, and he has been a regular questioner since. WHAT'S IN STORE FOR THOMAS? Thomas, who turns 78 on June 23, has given no indication of planning to retire. Trump, who would get to make a fourth appointment to the court if any vacancy arises, has said he hopes Thomas and fellow conservative Justice Samuel Alito, 76, stay on the bench. "It's hard for me to imagine that becoming the longest-serving justice is not of some importance to him," Wermiel said. Thomas in the past has hinted at a lengthy tenure. During a 2019 talk at Pepperdine University in California, Thomas was asked what he might say at his retirement party in 20 years' time. "But I'm not retiring," Thomas told the interviewer, who queried: "Not in 20 years?" "No," replied Thomas. "Not in 30 years?" the interviewer persisted. "No," Thomas replied. (Reporting by Jan Wolfe; Editing by Will Dunham)

More states join legal challenge to Nexstar, Tegna merger

Summary: Five states join lawsuit against Nexstar Tegna merger Judge Troy Nunley blocks Nexstar Tegna consolidation Ohio AG Dave Yost strikes local station independence deal WASHINGTON, May 1 (Reuters) - Five more U.S. states are joining an antitrust lawsuit challenging Nexstar's acquisition of rival broadcaster Tegna after a ‌judge temporarily blocked the deal from proceeding, according to California's attorney general. Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat whose office joined seven other states in suing over the $6.2 billion deal in March, said on April 30 that Massachusetts, Vermont, and his Republican counterparts in Indiana, Kansas, and Pennsylvania were joining the case. "These misguided attorneys general are strangling local journalism," Nexstar said, arguing that the real drivers of local news decline are "the unchecked rise of Big Tech platforms, the spread of misinformation on social media, and the economic pressures that have already led to widespread newsroom closures." Separately, Republican Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost said on April 30 that he struck a deal with Nexstar to maintain the independence of two local stations in Columbus and Cleveland where the company would own two affiliates following the merger. The deal requires maintaining separate news teams at each station and preserving existing levels of local programming through 2030. U.S. District Judge Troy Nunley in Sacramento said in an April 17 ruling that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their ​claims that the deal will substantially lessen competition in dozens of ​local television markets. The court’s order bars Nexstar from consolidating its operations with ⁠Tegna pending further litigation, but does not unwind the transaction. The deal quickly closed after the ​Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission approved it on March 19, which Nexstar ​noted in a statement announcing its appeal of Nunley's decision. The deal would create the largest broadcast station group ​in the ⁠United States, reaching 80% of households. The states have argued that the deal would result in lost jobs, increased cable bills and "significantly impact the delivery of news and other ⁠media content ​to Americans nationwide." Nexstar has ​said its deal with Tegna will strengthen local stations and support investment in local journalism. (Reporting by Daniel Wiessner in Albany, New York and David Shepardson in Washington; Editing by Muralikumar Anantharaman, Kirsten Donovan)

Attorney who led beagle farm raid says case will be ‘test for our legal system’

Summary: Wayne Hsiung charged with felony burglary in Wisconsin Court commissioner Brian Asmus lifts Dane County ban on Hsiung Ridglan Farms to sell majority of dogs to rescue groups A judge found enough evidence to continue a criminal case against a California attorney accused of leading a break-in at a beagle breeding facility outside of Madison, Wisconsin in March. Wayne Hsiung appeared in Dane County Circuit Court for a preliminary hearing on April 29, where a court commissioner found substantial information to continue the case, after seeing multiple videos of the March 15 break-in at Ridglan Farms in Blue Mounds, about 30 miles outside of Madison. About a dozen of Hsiung's supporters gathered in the courtroom, some suppressing tears as videos of the beagles at Ridglan were played as evidence. Hsuing, a California attorney and animal rights activist, was arrested earlier this month after an attempted raid at Ridglan Farms in Blue Mounds. Speaking to supporters and reporters after the hour-long hearing, Hsiung said he is confident in the case. "We have never had this much evidence of animal abuse in an open rescue, probably in history, and certainly from what I've seen," he said. "And because of that, this case demonstrates the profound failure of the legal system to protect the most vulnerable in our society. Dogs can't file a lawsuit, the can't call 911, they can't file a criminal complaint." Hsiung called his case a "test for our legal system." His attorney said he does not want to see the case dismissed, so that Hsiung gets his day in court. At his initial court appearance April 21, Court Commissioner Brian Asmus banned Hsiung from Dane County, except for hearings or meetings with his attorney. At the April 29 hearing, attorneys for Hsiung asked Asmus to remove the stipulations that prevent him from being in Dane County or speaking with his co-defendants. Asmus agreed to lift the ban on Hsiung being in Dane County, but kept the ban on Hsiung speaking with his co-defendants. He and four co-defendants – Melany Brieno, Aditya Aswani, Michelle Lunsky and Dean Wyrzykowski – have been charged with felony burglary as a party to a crime, a class F felony carrying a maximum penalty of 12 years and six months in prison and a $25,000 fine. Hundreds of animal rights activists descended upon Ridglan to protest against the farm on April 20, which breeds and raises beagles for research. The activists were hoping to take the nearly 2,000 beagles that remain at the facility, but no dogs were removed from the premises. Videos from the day showed people being pepper sprayed and tear-gassed by law enforcement. About 25 people were arrested. In a previous raid in March, dozens of activists managed to get into the facility and removed 23 dogs. Twenty-seven people were arrested in relation to that break-in. The protests followed an October settlement between the state and Ridglan, in which the facility agreed to stop the breeding and sales of dogs by July 1, but was still permitted to conduct its own internal research on the remaining animals. The settlement came after a Dane County judge appointed a special prosecutor last year to examine evidence against Ridglan Farms gathered by several animal rights groups. Former employees testified that dogs were being mistreated, including having their eye glands removed without anesthesia or pain control. The special prosecutor, La Crosse County District Attorney Tim Gruenke, determined the eye procedures violated state veterinary standards and constituted animal mistreatment. In exchange for the state not prosecuting, Ridglan agreed to give up its state breeding license, which ends its practice of selling dogs to outside researchers. Following the most recent protests, activists sued Ridglan Farms and the Dane County Sheriff's Department over its response to what they said was initially a peaceful protest. Police deployed tear gas and rubber bullets, which protestors argue was an excessive use of force. According to a report from the Cap Times, the lawsuit argues that law enforcement failed to safely intervene to protect the activists and the dogs inside the facility. Ridglan Farms said the claims in the lawsuit are "without merit," and that law enforcement was keeping the dogs and the property safe. It has repeatedly denied mistreating the dogs in its care. The company says that the beagles have contributed to research on rabies, canine parvovirus, heartworm, dog arthritis and distemper. Ridglan Farms announced plans April 29 to sell a majority of its dogs to two animal rescue groups. Laura Schulte can be reached at [email protected] and on X @SchulteLaura. This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Attorney who led beagle farm raid says case will be 'test for our legal system' Reporting by Laura Schulte, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel / Milwaukee Journal Sentinel