This page summarizes Justice Thomas’ jurisprudence, which is founded on an originalist approach to the Constitution. He writes more opinions per year than any other current sitting justice, which means this page will discuss only some of his greatest hits. Click here for all of his decisions.
In Printz v. United States, the Court held that Congress could not require state officials to conduct firearm background checks. Justice Thomas agreed that the law violated the Tenth Amendment. He added, though, that the Second Amendment might include a “personal right to keep and bear arms,” which the Court did not accept at the time. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court recognized that personal right. It enjoined a handgun ban, ruling that the Second Amendment allows law-abiding citizens to keep firearms in their homes.
In U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, the Supreme Court held that states could not enforce term limits against congressional candidates. Justice Thomas dissented, arguing that the Constitution is “silent” on this issue and that “the people of the States need not point to any affirmative grant of power” if they want to require qualifications from their own congressional candidates. In his view, the majority violated the “one overriding principle” of American government: “All power stems from the consent of the people.”
After President Franklin D. Roosevelt threatened to pack the Supreme Court, it began to interpret the Commerce Clause broadly. They interpreted “Commerce…among the several States” to include local matters that might have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. This “substantial effects” test empowers Congress to regulate almost anything. Justice Thomas rejects this test. Concurring in United States v. Lopez, he explained that the original meaning of the Commerce Clause includes only trade transported from one state to another. He complained that this “substantial effects” test invents a congressional “police power over all aspects of American life.” In United States v. Morrison, he calls the test a “rootless and malleable standard” that has “no limits.” And in Gonzales v. Raich, he applied this complaint to “marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana.” Despite his repeated complaints, the Court has kept the “substantial effects” test. But the “substantial effects” test is no longer limitless. In National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius, for example, the Court ruled that the Commerce Clause does not empower Congress to force people to purchase health insurance.
