Seventy years ago, in 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that overturned state laws that required racially separate schools. That decision, the Brown vs. Board of Education decision, is generally considered the accelerant that launched the Civil Rights movement and led to sweeping changes in American law and society.
A few days ago, Justice Clarence Thomas attacked the Brown decision, echoing views of segregationists who always opposed it. In the early decades after the decision, the Supreme Court took an expansive view of Brown. States and school districts not only had to dismantle laws that required racial segregation, they had to demonstrate to the courts that their actions had actually produced racial integration of students and staff.
Over time, the replacement of liberal judges by conservative judges caused the Court to moderate its stand on segregation. It increasingly abandoned its stringent guidelines and withdrew its orders to districts. Districts that were under supervision by the courts are no longer monitored. School segregation has been on the rise.
At long last, a senior justice on the Court said what conservative critics had long espoused: the Court exceeded its authority by striking down state laws that enforced racial segregation. Appointed by President George H.W. Bush, Clarence Thomas has long been a critic of civil rights laws, despite the fact that he is African-American.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas issued a strong rebuke of the Brown v. Board of Education ruling on Thursday, suggesting the court overreached its authority in the landmark decision that banned separating schoolchildren by race.
Why it matters: Thomas attacked the Brown decision in a concurrence opinion that allowed South Carolina to keep using a congressional map that critics say discriminated against Black voters.
Driving the news: The court “took a boundless view of equitable remedies” in the Brown ruling, wrote Thomas, who in 1991 replaced Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall — the first Black Supreme Court Justice and the lead lawyer in the Brown case.
- Those remedies came through “extravagant uses of judicial power” to end racial segregation in the 1950s and 60s, Thomas wrote.
- Federal courts have limited power to grant equitable relief, “not the flexible power to invent whatever new remedies may seem useful at the time,” he said, justifying his opinion to keep a predominantly white congressional district in South Carolina.
Zoom out: The U.S. marked the 70th anniversary of the landmark Brown v. Board of Education ruling last week.
- The 9-0 decision declared the “separate but equal” doctrine unconstitutional and helped usher in the Civil Rights Movement, though it took two decades to dismantle some school segregation policies.
State of play: An Axios review found American public schools are growing more separate and unequal even though the country is more racially and ethnically diverse than ever.
- Racial segregation in schools across the country has increased dramatically over the last three decades, according to two new reports and an Axios review of federal data.
- The resegregation of America’s public schools coincides with the rise of charter schools and school choice options and as civil rights groups have turned away from desegregation battles.
He’s A Good Judge … He Stays Bought
He’s been bought so many times he is sometimes called “Clearance Clarence.” We should have listened to Anita Hill.
American oligarchs have quite the collection of legislative, judicial, executive/bureaucratic action figures and bobblehead dolls! But Justass Clarence, he’s a particularly prized one!
Correct me if I am wrong. Thomas criticizes Brown vs Board from the standpoint of its broadening of judicial powers. He says nothing about Plessey v Ferguson, which it reversed. Are we to assume that Thomas would favor the reversal of Plessey but not the implications of that reversal?
From all I can read,Thomas seems to follow the Federalist Society toward a view that reversing PLessy was a good idea, but the way Brown did it was too dependent on evidence from social science and not dependent enough on constitutional precedent. Odd, he seemed to ignore this troubling aspect of Heller. Perhaps it has to do with what the issue is.
Flerp: Thanks. I read that. What I cannot figure out is why Thomas expresses reservations about expanding the judicial fiat with respect to attempting social justice (which I perceive as generally implied in the constitution already) but seems to have no problem with diverging from the constitution to declare that corporations are like individual citizens (Citizens United) or that each person is a militia within himself (Heller)
I think it’s more nuanced than this post suggests. Thomas was arguing that the Supreme Court jurisprudence in racial gerrymandering and vote dilution cases has over the exceeded the constitutional limits on the Court’s use of its equitable powers. I won’t touch that argument, but of course it’s very Thomasian, looking to the existing practices of the High Court of Chancery in England at the time when the Judiciary Act was adopted.
Below is what Thomas wrote about Brown. It’s a single paragraph, and what he’s saying is that the overly expansive (in Thomas’s opinion) view of the Court’s equitable powers emerged in the follow-on cases to Brown v. Board, due to the Court’s “impatience with the pace of desegregation” caused by localities that were refusing to comply with Brown. Thomas notes that that expansive view “may have been justified” at the time as a kind of exception to the rule, given the exceptional circumstances of localities blatantly thumbing their nose at the Supreme Court’s ruling, but it should not have become a permanent fixture in the Court’s jurisprudence. So, very Thomasian, but he’s not *exactly* saying Brown was wrongly decided.
Sorry. I clicked the wrong thing. The reply is above.
Thomas consistently rules against the interests of Black people. I wonder if he’s willing to cancel interracial marriage, which relied on the same right to privacy as abortion.
The guy is an utter hypocrite, as you point out.
If what we don’t know about Thomas, is the source of his power, then ‘splainin away his power will work. Start the clock…
Uncle Tom, the white supremacist black Extreme Court “just us,” for sale pretty cheaply.
I can’t believe how insulting you are. Uncle Tom? Do you even know who “Uncle Tom” was?
Hello Diane! You have a racist on your blog named BOB SHEPHERD.
Re-read the response. …Supreme Court justice…
I know precisely who Uncle Tom was. And what on Earth, under any conceivable stretch of the imagination, could be consider “racist” about the comment I made? I am furious at this person’s history of doing everything he can to block racial justice in this country. Duh.
And yes, I know who Uncle Tom was. I’ve read the book. Have you?
Do you somehow imagine that disliking some particular black person makes one a racist? ROFL. It’s pretty racist to equate an individual with the entire group, and that’s just what you have done, inadvertently, I’m sure, in that comment.
It is not “racist” to criticize Clarence Thomas. He consistently rules against the interests of Black people. If anyone is a racist, it’s Clarence Thomas.
Clarence Thomas’ attack on equal protection illustrates his chaotic jurisprudence. (slate.com)
This is a really good article on the ins and outs of Thomas’ decisions and his thinking.
It is too bad that the charges brought against Clarence Thomas by Anita Hill did not stick. Maybe we would not be going through all this BS that he has created and will continue to create as long as he and his wife are still on the court. I imagine his wife has something to do with what he is not saying about Brown v Brown.
They didn’t succeed because they weren’t TRUE. I know truth is irrelevant to democrats, but it does matter to the rest of the country.
I suspect that it is more nuanced than true or untrue, Ms. Hardt. I had friends who worked with Thomas and Hill at the EEOC. They said that in the Repugnican administration of the time, black people were rare. They were invited to everything to show how nonracist this extremely racist party was, and there was a LOT of pressure on them to be “representative.” This drove them together and created in Thomas’s mind a familiarity and level of intimacy that did not exist, not at the level at which Thomas perceived it. Also, his sexual innuendo was NOT appropriate because Hill was his subordinate–his assistant, in fact. So, the two had very different perspectives on what had passed between them. Thomas behaved inappropriately, but he didn’t know this. He thought that he and she had a certain level of intimacy, being black people in a lily-white administration, both from small towns, both Christian conservatives–a lot of commonality and shared background. I watched the hearings closely. One thing that I think was not faked was that Thomas seemed really, really hurt, emotionally, as though he was being betrayed. As I say, he was inappropriate. But he didn’t grok that, clearly. He thought that this incredibly close friend had betrayed him, and he was extremely hurt. That’s what my friends who worked for him said as well.
Jackie, surely you don’t believe that devotion to the truth is a GOP characteristic. Trump lies when he says he won the 2020 election. He lost in the electoral college and he lost the popular vote by seven million. In more than 60 court cases, Trump lost. There was zero evidence of voter fraud.
Bob– what you heard from friends in the know correlates well with what I saw, having also followed those hearings closely. Also notable that Thomas was 43yo at the time, and Hill 34yo– that 9yr age gap also marks a generational gap in terms of the difference between female & male POV on sexual harassment.
Great point about the generational gap, Ginny!
Dear Jacqui Troll, repeating lies does not make them TRUE. They are still lies.
The shifting demographics are what is driving the right wing attack on DEI. diversity, equity and inclusion. These extremists are emboldened by the appointment of so many right wing justices. They pretend to be supportive of a race neutral society, but what they really seek is the right to discriminate against anyone they perceive as different or unworthy.
Growing up in Philly, attending integrated schools and then teaching Black and brown foreign students in an integrated school district, I never thought that segregation was still a big problem in this country until I realized that privatization is a ticket to separate and unequal schools. DEI have always been positive way to provide tolerance and opportunity for all. In such an accepting environment young people can learn that those that are “different” from them are more like them than than they thought. Integrated public schools can bring people and communities together and support mutual respect and understanding, both of which are so needed today.
I just read an article in my feed from the Daily Yonder that South Dakota professors can face dismissal if they include their pronouns or their tribal affiliation on their official email.
Some of these Christian Nationalists have no problem declaring who they are, and some of them think they should be able impose their religious beliefs on others, which I find outrageous. Why do they feel so threatened by anyone who is different from them? Diversity makes the world more interesting, IMO. We don’t have to see the world the same way, but we should at least be respectful and kind.
I really, really struggle with “being kind” to Trumpanzees, who are OK with his ordering the Border Patrol to SHOOT unarmed asylum seekers at our border, with his long criminal history of bilking contractors and ordinary people and even the Trumpanzees themselves. Perhaps I should be more generous given their obvious cognitive impairment.
I assume you are against separate graduation ceremonies, dorms, and Christmas parties, based on skin color, as well?
So sorry that you were excluded from the Black Student Alliance Christmas Party last year, Jacqui! Must have been devastating to you.
Bob, not aswering the argument…as usual.
Can we get an antecedent? “You” would be in reference to …?
Interesting question which reminds me of my daughter’s graduation from Stanford.
Stanford held a two-stage graduation. One in the stadium with the guest speaker who was Bill Gates that year. I refused to show up to that one because of Gates.
When Gates was done feeding the packed stadium his BS, the graduates left the stadium for the smaller graduation ceremonies scattered all over campus by skin color, by ethnicity, by major, et al. where graduates were called up by name and got their degrees.
I showed up for the one for my daughter’s major, biology, and it was confusing figuring out where to park and go because there were so many ceremonies scattered all over Stanford and way too many people on campus.
That was almost a decade ago.
The grandkids are two and five, so I hope I’m gone (I’m 78.8) by the time they graduate from college, so I don’t have to go through that again. And if I’m still around, my daughter will have to push me in my wheelchair. Even if I can still walk, I’ll fake it. She can drive, too.
jacquilenhardt5598– well, that’s a new one on me. Perhaps weird outliers as shared on Faux News or social media? Do tell.
Im not going to do your googling for you, Beth. Do your own research.
When you’re right, you’re right, Jaqui. Learned more by googling. Apparently these have been going on for years, as indicated by Lloyd’s experience. Did not find any separated by skin color per se (looked up only grad ceremonies), but plenty by cultural identity– Filipino, LatinX, etc, as well as LGBTQ, and even one for low-SES.
No surprise here. It is Clarence Thomas after all. Thomas and Alito are the fascist twins on the Supreme Court, with wives that are also rabid fascists.
yup
Thomas is one of those, “Pull up the ladder behind myself” guys, isn’t he? Sigh
I just find it difficult to accept that this court has no problem telling states they can’t remove a candidate from its ballot, even after careful and thoughtful consideration and analysis, and then turn around and tell another it’s okay to gerrymander districts to make it more difficult for Black candidates to win – because the state legislature promised it wasn’t racism that drove the decision.
I call that cherry picking in order to impose personal opinion over law and common sense.
Don, that South Carolina ruling is a disgrace. The gerrymander disenfranchised 30,000 Black voters, all to protect Rep. Nancy Mace’s seat by making her district whiter
I think we get flummoxed by Thomas’ SCOTUS positons because we do not look at what his positions always were. We would be better off viewing any of Clarence Thomas’s opinions and votes on SCOTUS as those of a white man– or those of just a guy named Clarence Thomas. We get confused by the fact he—an African-American– was chosen to replace Thurgood Marshall, the first African-American on SCOTUS, and the lead lawyer in the Brown case. We forget the excruciating testimony of Anita Hill, demonstrating that his character was inadequate to SCOTUS position. Or that his one year in federal judgeship was his only year as a judge, period—before being nominated to SCOTUS. Or that his tenure as asst secy of Dept of Ed’s OCR, and subsequent position as chair of EEOC was always marked by a straddling of fence between critique of affirmative action policies, yet resisting their removal as a detraction from socioeconomic issues.
p.s. Did anyone ever read “The Emperor of Ocean Park”? [2002, Stephen L Carter]. Clarence Thomas reminds me of the fictional family scion, Oliver Garland, who had to decline Reagan nomination for SCOTUS due to embarrassing info coming out from his past…