Clarence Thomas

Clarence Thomas

Role at the time: Supreme Court associate justice, joining the dissent

Statement summary

Thomas joins the position that enforcement should be allowed during the appeal.

“Recorded action: Thomas expressly joined Alito’s dissent in favor of granting the government’s stay request.”

Clarence Thomas

Role at the time: Supreme Court justice dissenting from denial of review

Statement summary

Thomas calls for reconsidering the actual-malice standard for public figures and says he would have granted review in Dershowitz v. CNN.

“I and others have thus called for reconsideration of the actual-malice ... standard for public figures.”

Clarence Thomas

Role at the time: U.S. Supreme Court justice, in a concurring opinion

Statement summary

Thomas says Harvard's and UNC's admissions policies fail strict scrutiny and joins the majority opinion in full.

“Because the Court today applies genuine strict scrutiny to the race-conscious admissions policies employed at Harvard and the University of North Carolina (UNC) and finds that they fail that searching review, I join the majority opinion in full.”

Clarence Thomas

Role at the time: Associate justice writing a dissent, joined by Justice Alito

Statement summary

Thomas, joined by Alito, argues that the code is copyrightable and that Google's copying was not fair use.

“Google’s use of that copyrighted code was anything but fair.”

Clarence Thomas

Role at the time: Associate justice of the United States Supreme Court

Statement summary

Thomas says the government obtained the carriers' records rather than searching Carpenter's property.

“By obtaining the cell-site records of MetroPCS and Sprint, the Government did not search Carpenter’s property. He did not create the records, he does not maintain them, he cannot control them, and he cannot destroy them. Neither the terms of his contracts nor any provision of law makes the records his. The records belong to MetroPCS and Sprint.”

Clarence Thomas

Role at the time: Supreme Court associate justice, writing a dissent

Statement summary

Thomas argues that the decision departs from the original meaning of the Public Use Clause.

“Today’s decision is simply the latest in a string of our cases construing the Public Use Clause to be a virtual nullity, without the slightest nod to its original meaning.”