The Supreme Court just dealt a blow to the progressive obsession with group-based favoritism.
Fox News reported that in a unanimous ruling, the justices rejected a lower court’s discriminatory standard that made it harder for majority group members to prove workplace bias. Justice Clarence Thomas, ever the champion of individual rights, led the charge with a scathing concurrence that could spell trouble for DEI initiatives.
Last week, the Court decided Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, where a straight Ohio woman claimed workplace discrimination under Title VII.
The ruling tossed out a “background circumstances” rule that unfairly burdened majority group plaintiffs with a higher evidentiary hurdle. It’s a decision that restores fairness, plain and simple.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson penned the Court’s opinion, emphasizing Title VII’s clear language protecting “any individual” from discrimination.
She leaned on the 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County case, which clarified the law’s focus on individuals, not groups. Progressives might cheer Jackson’s name, but her reasoning here undercuts their groupthink agenda.
Clarence Thomas, serving over 35 years on the bench, joined Jackson’s opinion and added his concurrence. He’s been crystal clear since his days as EEOC chairman in 1985, arguing for individual rights over group preferences. “Defending the rights of individuals” isn’t just a slogan for Thomas—it’s his north star.
Back in 1985, Thomas wrote that equal opportunity means no special treatment for any group. He called out those pushing group preferences as abandoning moral leadership. Sounds like a polite zinger aimed at today’s DEI crusaders, doesn’t it?
In his Ames concurrence, Thomas didn’t hold back, arguing the lower court’s rule violated the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee.
He pointed fingers at DEI and affirmative action plans, noting they often lead to “overt discrimination” against those seen as the majority. Ouch—truth stings when it’s this direct.
Thomas’ views aren’t new; they’re rooted in decades of consistent thought. In the 1995 Missouri v. Jenkins case, he criticized reliance on social science over constitutional principles, insisting the government must treat citizens as individuals. Group-based policies, he argued, betray that ideal.
By 2007, in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District, Thomas was quoting Justice Harlan’s Plessy v. Ferguson dissent: “Our Constitution is color-blind.” He wasn’t shy about standing with Harlan’s lone voice against a system that sorts people by race. Bold move, but Thomas never wavers.
Fast forward to 2023, and Thomas doubled down on cases banning race-based college admissions.
He invoked the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, demanding equal treatment for all. His words carry the weight of someone who’s seen discrimination’s scars yet refuses to compromise on principle.
Jackson’s opinion in Ames was surgical, dismantling the lower court’s rule by sticking to Title VII’s text. “Congress left no room” for special requirements on majority plaintiffs, she wrote. That’s a legal smackdown dressed in judicial restraint.
Thomas’s concurrence, though, is where the real fireworks are. He called out DEI initiatives for fostering discrimination against perceived majority groups. When a justice this influential says your pet policy is discriminatory, it’s time to rethink your playbook.
The Ames ruling isn’t just a win for one Ohio woman; it’s a warning shot for DEI programs nationwide. If they prioritize groups over individuals, they’re on shaky legal ground. Actions, as they say, have consequences.
Since Justice Antonin Scalia died in 2016, Thomas has stepped up as the conservative legal movement’s intellectual heavyweight. His concurrence in Ames shows why: unflinching logic paired with a deep commitment to constitutional principles. He’s not here to play nice with trendy ideologies.
The Court’s unanimity in Ames proves even liberal justices can’t ignore Title VII’s clear text. But it’s Thomas’ vision—a Constitution that sees individuals, not groups—that’s shaping the future. Progressives might not like it, but they can’t argue with the law.
