In a recent speech at the University of Texas, Justice Clarence Thomas launched a scathing critique of progressivism, identifying it as the root of many societal ills since the 20th century. At an event commemorating the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas attempted to link progressivism with historical figures such as Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini, as well as concepts like racial segregation and eugenics. He alleged that progressivism aims to subvert the foundational principles of the Declaration of Independence and, subsequently, the American form of government. This viewpoint was met with criticism, notably from legal scholars who argue that it overlooks significant contributions made by progressive movements, particularly in the realm of constitutional law and civil rights.
Justice Thomas’ remarks have sparked substantial debate, highlighting the deep ideological divides within the United States Supreme Court and beyond. Although the justice’s right to express personal views is undisputed, critics, including Erwin Chemerinsky on SCOTUSblog, caution against using such influential platforms to propagate divisive rhetoric. Chemerinsky emphasizes that the history of progressivism in America includes several landmark achievements that have enhanced civil liberties, citing examples like the dismantling of Jim Crow laws, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Chemerinsky counters Thomas’ argument by pointing out the contradiction in denouncing progressivism while having a history of supporting broad executive power—something that the Declaration of Independence fundamentally sought to limit. He stresses that it was the encouragement and advocacy of progressive jurists and lawmakers that led to significant changes in the application of the Bill of Rights to state and local governments, as well as expansions in freedom of speech and racial justice superior to those prevalent in the early 20th century.
Decisions from the Supreme Court that champion progressive ideals have often been pivotal. For instance, the unanimous ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan underscored the importance of freedom of expression and limited the capacity for defamation suits against public officials—a vital protection for media freedom. Thomas, as highlighted by Chemerinsky, has voiced opposition to these protections, calling for a reevaluation of such landmark rulings.
While acknowledging that progressivism has had its flaws, Chemerinsky argues that its contributions to American society have been largely positive. The discussion provoked by Justice Thomas’ address reflects the broader ongoing conflict over the direction of the Supreme Court and its influence on American law and society, underscoring the pivotal role played by ideological battles within the highest court of the land.