Justice Thomas: Reexamine 1871 Civil Rights Law

In an opinion issued Thursday, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said the court should "reexamine" a 154-year-old section of federal law that is widely used in civil rights litigation.

The high court's conservative majority cleared the way on Thursday for states to block Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood, in a 6-3 ruling that overturned a lower court's decision barring South Carolina from terminating Planned Parenthood South Atlantic's participation in the state's Medicaid program.

The case stemmed from a lawsuit filed by Planned Parenthood and Medicaid patient Julie Edwards in 2018 after Republican Gov. Henry McMaster directed South Carolina officials to declare the organization ineligible to participate in the state's Medicaid program because it provides abortions.

The court's three liberal justices dissented from the decision.

Newsweek reported that Thomas issued a concurrence in which he said the court "properly" applied precedent "to resolve the question presented."

"As it makes clear, even under current doctrine, courts should not too readily recognize a statutory right as enforceable under §1983," Thomas wrote. "But, given the remarkable gap between the original understanding of §1983 and its current role, a more fundamental reexamination of our §1983 jurisprudence is in order."

Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 is a federal statute that allows individuals to sue state and local government officials for violations of constitutional rights. It is frequently used in federal civil rights litigation.

Thomas has expressed his desire to narrow the contexts under which the civil rights law can be invoked in a number of past court decisions.

In 2020, he reportedly dissented on cases the court declined to hear that challenged qualified immunity.

"I have previously expressed my doubts about our qualified immunity jurisprudence," Thomas wrote, according to Newsweek. "Because our Section 1983 qualified immunity doctrine appears to stray from the statutory text, I would grant this petition."

Thomas also asserted that Section 1983 does not mention defenses or immunities, but its text allows individuals to file suit and "applies categorically to the deprivation of constitutional rights under color of state law."

In February, the court ruled in a case brought by unemployed workers in Alabama who sued the state's Department of Labor under Section 1983 for allegedly illegally delaying the processing of unemployment benefits claims.

"As a matter of first principles, States have unfettered discretion over whether to provide a forum for §1983 claims in their courts," Thomas wrote in his dissent, according to Newsweek. "And, Alabama's exhaustion rule does not transgress the limitations that our precedents have recognized."

• Clarence Thomas Rips High Court for 'Abdication' of Duty
• Justice Thomas Seeks to Upend 1977 SCOTUS Ruling