Justice Clarence Thomas stated that the Supreme Court should adopt a more critical stance toward established legal precedents. He emphasized that decided cases are not infallible, describing them as not being "the gospel" and suggesting that some may have originated from unfounded ideas. Thomas made these remarks during a public event at Catholic University’s Columbus School of Law in Washington, D.C., just days before the Supreme Court begins a new term that will address several significant legal challenges.

The Court is set to reconsider Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S., a nearly 90-year-old precedent that restricts a president's ability to dismiss members of certain independent federal agencies without cause. Additionally, the justices will evaluate whether to overturn Thornburg v. Gingles, a pivotal 1986 ruling that addresses the use of race in redistricting under the Voting Rights Act. For the first time, the Court is also reviewing a petition that seeks to explicitly revisit and potentially overturn the 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which granted marriage rights to same-sex couples.

"At some point we need to think about what we’re doing with stare decisis," Thomas remarked, referring to the legal principle that encourages adherence to previous rulings. He cautioned against treating stare decisis as a mere formulaic response, stating, "And it’s not some sort of talismanic deal where you can just say ‘stare decisis’ and not think, turn off the brain, right?"

Thomas, the Court's most senior conservative member, criticized the tendency of some justices to follow past decisions without question. He likened this behavior to passengers on a train who do not check who is driving or where it is headed. "We never go to the front see who’s driving the train, where is it going. And you could go up there in the engine room, find it’s an orangutan driving the train, but you want to follow that just because it’s a train," he said.

He further clarified his stance on legal precedents, stating, "I don’t think that I have the gospel, that any of these cases that have been decided are the gospel, and I do give perspective to the precedent. But it should — the precedent should be respectful of our legal tradition, and our country, and our laws, and be based on something, not just something somebody dreamt up and others went along with."

Thomas has consistently advocated for a reassessment of several landmark Supreme Court decisions. In a 2022 concurring opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, which overturned Roe v. Wade, he urged his colleagues to reconsider all substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell, which involve rights related to contraception, same-sex intimacy, and marriage.