Oct 8, 2010; Washington, DC, USA; Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas. Mandatory Credit: H. Darr Beiser/USA TODAY-USA TODAY NETWORK

WASHINGTON – As the Supreme Court is about to revisit some major decisions, one of the nine justices - and a key member of the conservative majority - has offered his view that there’s nothing sacred about precedent.

"At some point we need to think about what we're doing with stare decisis,” Justice Clarence Thomas said about the legal term that protects stability in the law. "And it's not some sort of talismanic deal where you can just say 'stare decisis' and not think, turn off the brain.”

Thomas offered that view in a rare public appearance at Catholic University's Columbus School of Law on Sept. 25.

He was asked about the factors he considers when deciding whether a past decision was wrong and did not address any pending cases.

In the term that begins next month, the court will revisit a nearly century-old ruling protecting the heads of independent agencies that President Donald Trump has repeatedly challenged as he’s sought greater control over the government.

The high court has been chipping away at its 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which upheld the constitutionality of preventing members of the Federal Trade Commission from being fired without cause.

When the majority said Trump could fire for now the last Democratic member of the FTC, Justice Elean Kagan wrote in her dissent that her colleagues are “raring” to overturn Humphrey’s Executor.

That’s not the only precedent the court could upend.

The administration has asked the court to uphold Trump’s changes to birthright citizenship, threatening a 127-year-old Supreme Court ruling.

In another case, the Republican Party argues a 2001 decision limiting how much political parties can spend on advertising and other messaging in coordination with a federal candidate no longer makes sense.

And the court could gut a key provision of the Voting Rights Act that it has previously backed.

Those are all cases the high court has agreed to hear or is expected to hear.

Less certain is whether the justices will want to revisit the 2015 decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.

A former Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses in 2015 because of her religious beliefs has asked the court to do that.

But many legal experts think it’s unlikely the court will consider her appeal.

The justices declined to intervene in 2020 at an earlier stage in her challenge.

Thomas wrote at the time that while Davis' case was a "stark reminder" of the consequences of the court’s same-sex marriage decision, it didn’t "cleanly present" questions about that ruling.

Thomas is among the justices who voted in 2022 to overturn Roe v. Wade, as well as voted to overturn long-standing precedent on affirmative action and on government regulations.

At Catholic University, Thomas said he respects precedent, but “the precedent should be respectful of our legal tradition and our country and our laws and be based on something, not just something that somebody dreamt up and others went along with.”

“I don’t think that I have the gospel,” he said, “and I don’t that any of these cases that have been decided are the gospel.”

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Not 'the gospel.' Ahead of Supreme Court term, Clarence Thomas weighs in on precedent

Reporting by Maureen Groppe, USA TODAY / USA TODAY

USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect