Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas used a public address at the University of Texas to challenge modern progressivism, arguing it drifts from the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. He urged students and young lawyers to reclaim the founding principles and to act with moral courage. His remarks framed progressivism as an ideological shift that places power in institutions rather than in the rights the founders intended.
Thomas, the court’s longest-serving justice, spoke to a full auditorium as part of events marking the Declaration’s 250th anniversary. He warned that core American values have “fallen out of favor” and that the next generation must be ready to defend them. The tone was stern but purposeful, aimed squarely at those who will shape law and civic life going forward.
He drew a bright line between the founders’ view of natural rights and what he called a modern political movement that substitutes government for religious or transcendent sources of dignity. “Progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence, and hence our form of government,” he said. That claim was meant to jolt listeners into recognizing a fundamental conflict over the source of rights.
Thomas pushed harder on that source, insisting it is not the state. “It holds that our rights and our dignities come not from God, but from the government,” Thomas said. “It requires of the people a subservience and weakness incompatible with a Constitution premised on the transcendent origin of our rights.” He framed this as an existential choice about whether citizens bow to power or stand by principle.
The justice also criticized a certain intellectual posture he sees as fashionable in some circles, where skepticism slides into cynicism and disengagement. “They recast themselves as institutionalists, pragmatists or thoughtful moderates, all as a way of justifying their failures to themselves, their consciences, and their country,” he said. That was a warning against settling for comfortable labels that mask a retreat from responsibility.
On several occasions Thomas circled back to the practical consequences of political indifference and institutional capture, pressing students to act. “I think if we don’t stand up and take ownership of our country, and take responsibility for it, we are slowly letting others control how we think and what we think,” he said. The language was blunt and intended to stir a reaction, especially among young lawyers who will enter public life.
He appealed to law students in particular, calling for courage and conviction in legal work and public service. “In my view, we must find in ourselves that same level of courage that the signers of the Declaration have so that we can do for our future what they did for theirs,” he said. For Thomas, legal theory cannot be divorced from civic duty; the two must reinforce each other.
Thomas closed by urging participation over passivity, insisting that democracy depends on citizens who are willing to engage and defend the founding framework. “If you think it’s losing confidence, then you get up and you participate. You don’t sit on the sidelines.” His message was a direct call to action, framed from a conservative perspective that values constitutional fidelity and civic responsibility.
