Justice Clarence Thomas’s recent remarks during a speech at the University of Texas have sparked significant discussion among legal scholars and practitioners. His speech, which was ostensibly in honor of the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, took an unexpected turn when Thomas criticized the rise of progressivism, linking it to some of the most egregious crimes of the 20th century. Specifically, he associated progressivism with the actions of Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Mao, as well as with racial segregation and eugenics. He contended that progressivism aims to supplant the foundational ideals of the Declaration of Independence, thereby transforming the American form of government.
Erwin Chemerinsky, writing in SCOTUSblog, critiques Thomas’s lumping of progressivism with these historical atrocities. Chemerinsky argues that it is an incorrect interpretation to equate the notorious dictators of the past century with American progressivism, which has, in fact, advanced several democratic principles. Notably, progressives played a pivotal role in dismantling Jim Crow laws and advocating for racial justice, with landmark cases like Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia.
The progress made under progressivism is further highlighted by its role in the incorporation of the Bill of Rights to state and local governments—a significant expansion of civil liberties in the United States. This evolution, largely credited to the Warren Court, ensured that state and local entities could no longer ignore Constitutional protections. Progressive justices like Earl Warren and Hugo Black were instrumental in this transformation, which markedly advanced the protection of freedoms including speech, adding a critical layer of accountability and civil rights protection.
Freedom of speech is another area where progressive influence is palpable. Important Supreme Court decisions such as New York Times v. Sullivan and New York Times v. United States (the Pentagon Papers case) were vital in fortifying the right to free expression against government overreach. These rulings reflect a commitment to the fundamental principles of debate and transparency, which lie at the core of democratic society.
Chemerinsky asserts that while progressivism is not without its historical faults, Justice Thomas’s broad-brushed critique lacks nuance and dismisses substantial advancements that have shaped American law and society positively. His article invites legal professionals to consider whether Justice Thomas’s portrayal of progressivism aligns with its historical and ongoing contributions to liberty and equality.