During a recent appearance at Catholic University Law School, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas defended the Court’s practice of overturning precedent, arguing that judges must think critically rather than blindly follow prior decisions. He likened the legal principle of stare decisis to a train, warning that following precedent without scrutiny is like letting an “orangutan” drive the train. “You can’t just say ‘stare decisis’ and turn off the brain,” he said.

Thomas emphasized that while precedent should be respected, it is not infallible. “I don’t think that any of these cases are the gospel,” he said, suggesting that precedent must be rooted in sound legal reasoning, not mere tradition.

In recent years, the conservative-led Supreme Court has overturned several major precedents. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), the Court reversed Roe v. Wade, ending federal abortion protections. It also banned affirmative action in college admissions and overturned the Chevron doctrine, reducing federal agencies’ regulatory power.

Looking forward, the Court is poised to revisit Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), which limited presidential power to remove officials at independent agencies. The justices recently blocked former President Trump from firing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook amid allegations of mortgage fraud, signaling complex legal debates ahead.

Thomas’s remarks reflect a broader judicial philosophy that views precedent as important, but not untouchable—particularly when the current majority believes earlier rulings conflict with constitutional principles.