Clarence Thomas Tucks Golden Takedown of 'So-Called Experts' Into Ruling on Trans Procedures for Minors

In a monumental victory for state sovereignty and child protection, the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1 — a law that bans irreversible transgender medical procedures for minors.

While the 6-3 ruling alone was cause for celebration among constitutional conservatives, it was Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion that truly stole the show.

Thomas launched a direct assault on the credibility and unchecked authority of the so-called “expert class,” slamming the plaintiffs' reliance on alleged medical consensus to challenge the state law.

For a Nation That Believes, Builds, and Never Backs Down

Become a member to support our mission and access exclusive content.

View Plans
“The Court rightly rejects efforts by the United States and the private plaintiffs to accord outsized credit to claims about medical consensus and expertise,” Thomas wrote.

He outlined the many problems with deferring to unelected “experts” on such high-stakes issues — starting with the fact that actual consensus is lacking, especially when it comes to the radical and experimental treatment of gender dysphoria in children.

Thomas forcefully defended the right of the people, through their elected representatives, to chart their own course — even if that means rejecting elite, ideologically-driven narratives dressed up as science.

“This case serves as a useful reminder that the American people and their representatives are entitled to disagree with those who hold themselves out as experts,” he wrote. “Courts may not ‘sit as a super-legislature to weigh the wisdom of legislation.’”

Chief Justice John Roberts echoed that sentiment in the majority opinion, stressing that it is not the judiciary’s role to pass judgment on the “wisdom” of laws passed through the democratic process — only to determine if they are constitutional.

“Our role is not ‘to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic’ of the law before us… but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment,” Roberts stated.

Justice Thomas, however, went further — delivering a searing critique of the way “experts” have hijacked democratic debate. He warned against elevating elite opinion over the will of the people and sounded the alarm about courts becoming complicit in what amounts to technocratic tyranny.

“To hold otherwise,” he wrote, “would permit elite sentiment to distort and stifle democratic debate under the guise of scientific judgment.”
“When legislation does not cross constitutional lines, States must have leeway to effect the judgment of their citizens — no matter whether experts disagree.”

The opinion resonated deeply among conservatives and legal scholars.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton praised Thomas’s concurring opinion as “powerful,” adding that the justice “clapped back on the reliance of the ‘expert class’ in justifying the demonic abuse of children.”

Law professor and commentator Jonathan Turley likewise took note, calling it a clear “shot at the ‘expert class.’”

Indeed, conservatives have long since learned — often through bitter experience — that “experts agree” is little more than a coded demand to “shut up and obey.” Whether during the COVID panic or in the push for gender ideology, the left has weaponized credentialed authority to crush dissent and bypass the democratic process.

For a Nation That Believes, Builds, and Never Backs Down

Become a member to support our mission and access exclusive content.

View Plans

But on Wednesday, the Supreme Court reminded America that we are still a republic — not an expert-run oligarchy.

Thanks to Justice Thomas, that reminder was delivered with a sledgehammer.


Subscribe to Lib Fails

Don’t miss out on the latest issues. Sign up now to get access to the library of members-only issues.
jamie@example.com
Subscribe