Justice Thomas And The Progressive Turn
Justice Thomas has sketched a bold story about how progressivism reshaped America in the early 20th century and pushed at the limits of the Declaration and the Constitution. He frames that era as a turning point when confident reformers and changing institutions began to redraw the relationship between citizens and government. That narrative throws a spotlight on the legal and cultural choices that still echo in courtrooms and classrooms today.
In a speech last week at the University of Texas at Austin’s event marking the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said that “progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence and hence our form of government.”
“It holds that our rights, that our dignities come not from God, but from government,” Thomas said in his special lecture. “You will not be surprised to learn that the progressives had a great deal of contempt for us, the American people.”
A Century Of Progressive Change
The early 1900s were a crucible of change, with urbanization, industrial power, and new social movements demanding reforms that the Founders never anticipated. Progressives built regulatory regimes, expanded administrative agencies, and advanced social policies that shifted decision making from legislatures into expert bodies and courts. Those moves solved real problems but also raised hard questions about who should decide and on what constitutional basis.
Legal doctrine evolved alongside policy, with courts interpreting the Constitution in ways that accommodated a modern state tasked with managing a complex economy. Concepts like the administrative state and more expansive readings of commerce and due process gave federal institutions room to act. Critics argue those shifts diluted original commitments; defenders say they allowed the nation to adapt without tearing itself apart.
Thomas’s Take And The Broader Stakes
Justice Thomas views the progressive transformation as more than a historical episode; he sees it as an ongoing drift away from the Declaration’s emphasis on self-government and natural rights. From his perspective, legal innovations that prioritize managerial expertise over textual fidelity risk concentrating power in unelected hands and weakening the Constitution’s role as a restraint on that power. His account is both a critique of past choices and a call to reconsider how judges should restore constitutional boundaries.
That stance feeds a larger debate about judicial philosophy and democratic legitimacy: should courts seek to recover the meaning the Founders intended, or should they allow constitutional interpretation to flex with new realities? Thomas champions a more originalist approach that treats the Constitution as a fixed framework, while others warn that rigid originalism could freeze protections and hamper progress. The contest is not merely academic because it shapes which values guide policy and who gets to enforce them.
Beyond legal theory, the clash over progressivism touches civic identity and public memory, especially around symbols like the Declaration of Independence. For those who side with Thomas, returning to founding principles is a way to reaffirm popular sovereignty and limit unaccountable governance. For opponents, the progressive century corrected injustices and created tools for collective action that remain vital to a pluralistic republic.
Whatever side one takes, Thomas’s narration forces a clearer confrontation with history and its consequences: we must choose how to balance stability and change, text and context, expertise and popular control. The debates he ignites play out in decisions about administrative power, voting rights, economic regulation, and the role of courts in mediating social conflict. Those are fights that will determine how the Constitution is lived, not just interpreted.