Clarence Thomas Just Lit the Fuse on a States’ Rights Revolution

Justice Clarence Thomas, who happens to be one of my favorite Justice’s, didn’t just concur in United States v. Skrmetti—he launched a constitutional missile. While the case itself was about Tennessee’s ban on gender-transition procedures for minors, what it really represents in the opinion that was published yesterday, is a declaration of war against federal overreach, the cult of expertise, and the bureaucratic state. In the shadow of the Dobbs decision, Thomas just handed state legislatures a loaded weapon: the power to ignore “expert consensus” and govern according to the will of their voters. What a concept. Before we dive in, I’ll also offer up a wonderful podcast about Thomas: if you are driving around celebrating Juneteenth, I recommend a listen. It’s really excellent.

This post isn’t about opinions on transgender treatment. This is a post about why the opinion is about dismantling the post-New Deal scaffolding of federal supremacy. It’s Thomas’s legacy, and if you squint, you can already see the exit plan: Thomas and Alito stepping down while Trump’s in office, replaced by 40-year-old originalists ready to hold the line for the next 30 years. If you didn’t know the best thing for the United States was Trump’s Supreme Court moves in 1.0, you will soon.

A Constitutional Kill Shot to the Expert Class

The 6–3 decision upholding Tennessee’s law was the headline but the real fireworks came from Thomas’s concurrence. His message: the Constitution doesn’t defer to credentialed technocrats, it defers to elected lawmakers.

Thomas ripped through the logic of relying on medical organizations like WPATH, calling them “constitutionally irrelevant.” His four-part takedown reads like an Founding Fathers manifesto:

1. Experts Aren’t in the Constitution: Legislative power goes to elected officials, not medical boards or PhDs with activist leanings.

2. Lawmakers Get to Weigh Risks: Tennessee considered the pros and cons of these treatments—and passed a law. That’s how democracy works.

3. Courts Aren’t Review Boards: Judges check for constitutional violations, not whether policies pass a peer-reviewed sniff test.

4. Bias Dressed as Science: WPATH isn’t neutral—it’s ideological. Courts deferring to it would be swapping democracy for technocracy.

Thomas’s dagger line:

“In politically contentious debates over matters shrouded in scientific uncertainty, courts should not assume that self-described experts are correct.”

That single sentence may be the most important signal since Dobbs. It tells every lower court: when state laws collide with expert opinion, the tie goes to the legislature. Chevron Deference: done. IRS judge, jury and executioner: over. Federal overreach? Crumbling.

The Ripple Effect

Thomas’s concurrence isn’t a one-off. It’s a doctrinal multi-tool that lawyers will cite for years. Here’s where it’s going next:

• Vaccine Mandates & Public Health: Expect it cited in fights against federal mandates. If your state says no to CDC rules, courts shouldn’t let “trust the science” override state autonomy.

• Gun Control: In a post-Bruen world, federal restrictions citing “violence prevention experts” will face new scrutiny. Legislatures—not agencies—decide the balance.

• Environmental Rules: West Virginia v. EPA was step one. Skrmetti is the logic boost to help states challenge federal climate dictates justified by “climate consensus.”

• Education and DEI: SFFA v. Harvard gutted race-based admissions. Now, Thomas’s concurrence gives legal ammo to attack federal DEI mandates justified by “diversity consultants.”

• Election Law: State-led reforms—voter ID, district maps, registration limits—get extra insulation from activist judges leaning on “voting rights experts.”

The message is simple: expert consensus ≠ constitutional authority. Legislatures can legislate, even in the face of elite disapproval. And more so today, especially in the face of it.

Why It’s Bigger Than Congress

What Thomas is building—brick by brick, opinion by opinion—is a Court-centered counterrevolution. Congress can posture. Presidents can bluster. But it’s the Supreme Court that decides which rules actually stick. And Thomas’s vision is clear: if it’s not in the Constitution, it belongs to the states.

• Local Rule is Real Democracy: A Tennessee voter has more say over Nashville policy than over what WPATH believes. That’s the point.

• Federal Agencies Aren’t Kings: Bureaucrats don’t get to legislate by PowerPoint. If Congress didn’t say it, and the Constitution didn’t grant it, it’s not binding.

• Accountability Matters: You can fire a state lawmaker. Try doing that to a CDC director or a DEI consultant embedded in a federal agency.

This is originalism with teeth.

Thomas and Alito’s Endgame: Lock the Court for a Generation

Here’s my prediction: Clarence Thomas (73) and Sam Alito (75) aren’t going to retire because they’re tired—they’re waiting for the right political conditions. If Republicans win the Senate in 2026, they’ll step down, handing the baton to new blood: 40-something originalists which would cement a generational 6-3 Court that doesn’t just lean right—it reshapes law at its foundation.

Meanwhile, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson will keep writing emotional dissents, crying foul, and losing because the law and the Constitution is not on their side

Justice Thomas isn’t trying to win the news cycle. His Skrmetti concurrence is Dobbs 2.0—same logic, new target. Federal mandates, “expert” governance, bureaucratic rulemaking: all on notice. And if Thomas and Alito step down strategically, their successors will carry that torch for 30 years. That’s not just a shift in law. That’s a new constitutional order—one where Washington doesn’t run everything, and the credentialed elite doesn’t get the final word.

For the record, it’s a gloriously written opinion. It starts on page 30 and his great stuff starts in 45. His savage stuff is on page 50.