"This is one of the most important and consistent decisions in the history of our country," said the First Amendment expert and the lawyer of the Supreme Court Theodore J. Butrice of Gibson Dunn.
The impudence of Thomas's thought, which was associated with a related affair, suddenly took Butrice and others.
She even revived the propaganda campaign among the progressives that 70-year-old justice is preparing to retire. Thinking that he put forward the idea – joining no other justice – as a kind of last volley, when he was preparing to give up his seat to the youngest candidate Trump.
But close to Tom saw something completely different. For them, this was another opportunity for Thomas to plant seeds for the future in the field of law, which he thinks deserves more attention.
They say that the thought was less than the last volley, and more, the creation of a new marker of justice, which believes in correcting what he sees as the mistakes of the past, even if he speaks for himself.
Although there may not be a tattoo, or Thomas Thomas Thomas totalitarian bag, or another bag that surrounds Ruth Bader Ginzburg, and he may not have enough votes in court, to win the day, after more than a quarter of a century on the bench, created a genuine an army of former officials and those whom he calls his "recruited servants" who see the world and the law like a lens. It is difficult for them to believe in the rumors of retirement, especially now that Thomas sits with a newly-established conservative majority, and in a sense he gets a new step.
The New York Times vs. Sullivan
In his opinion, on Tuesday, which was a technical agreement on denial of a certificate on a case-related language, Thomas complained that according to the first amendment of the Court's precedents, "public figures are prohibited from charging damages for libel if they do not show that the disputed statement was made with" true malice "- that is, with the knowledge that it is false or inadvertently neglected, whether it was false or not .
The rulings give plaintiffs an almost impossible standard, Thomas wrote, and that instead of simply "applying" the First Amendment, as it was clear to the people who had ratified it, the Court entered the sphere of politics and formed its own rule.
"We should not continue to reflexively apply this policy-based approach to the Constitution," he said.
His view is based on the judicial philosophy of originality, and the theory was also defended by the late Judge Antonin Skali.
But while Rock in public speaking could have criticized the New York Times against Sullivan, he never wrote thoughts, as Thomas may have respect for the precedent.
Butraz thinks that if Thomas places a marker then it is dangerous.
"If such an opinion prevails, this will be a dramatic break in our democratic system, since the New York Times v. Sullivan advocates the basic principle that citizens should be able to speak without fear of punishment in a civil case, especially when criticized by public figures and discuss issues of social significance, "he said.
Thomas's followers, like conservative lawyer Charles J. Cooper, say that Tuesday's thought is a continuation of his jurisprudence and reflection This is the fact that he often displays a spotlight on the area of law that bother him.
"Thomas's solitary opinion, in which he outlined familiar familiar fears about the correctness of the New York Times vs. Sullivan, is part of his jurisprudence over the past two decades," Cooper said.
"There is simply no reason to doubt that Justice Thomas will continue to express his concern about the correctness of previous court decisions, regardless of how they can be sacred in some quarters," Cooper added.
Cooper points to the early thought that Thomas wrote, focusing on the constitutionality of the bureaucracy, which is usually called the administrative state.
During 2014-2015, Thomas wrote three thoughts on the subject.
For Thomas, when the Congress delegates its powers to federal agencies, it gives those bodies too much power with too little responsibility. As Thomas said in the Transport Department against the American Railways Association, the struggle is about "a proper separation between the legislative and executive powers."
"Reviewing the history of these powers shows how far our modern jurisprudence about the separation of powers from the original meaning of the Constitution," he wrote.
In 2015, Cooper wrote for the National Affairs magazine: "Thomas Thomas alone is constantly questioning the constitutionality of a modern administrative state."
Today, this problem has become a couple and has become a provocative point in Washington and the initiative of the Trump administration.
Indeed, the former secretary of Thomas, Neomi Rao, is the administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. It was a little known person in the Office of Management and Budget of the White House, responsible for ensuring that the federal authorities comply with the law and act in accordance with the administration's policy. In short, Rao acts as the president of Donald Trump for regulatory failures.
She is also a candidate for the United States Appellate Court for the District of Columbia, a nursery for future judges.
Washington is now filled with former secretaries of Thomas and disciples.
Trump put forward 11 former Thomas clerics to the courts. People such as Gregory Katsas, who served at the White House Advisor office, are currently sitting at the United States Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia. And James S. Ho, nominee Trump, who sits in the County.
There are former employees at the office of the White House Adviser, including Patrick F. Philbin, Deputy Registrar and Kate Commercialford Todd, who heads the trial for Patrick Sipolone's White House Advisor. Andrew Ferguson, another former secretary, had to join the White House team, but instead filled in the opening as Senator Lindsay Graham's candidacy for the Senate Court.
There are also "honorary" clerks – those who are close to Thomas who never worked for him – for example, Alex Azar, secretary of the Health and Social Services, Senator Mike Lee, R-Utah , which serves on the court committee. Mark Paoletta, who is the general advisor to the Office and the budget.
Jeff Wall, another secretary, is the Chief Deputy of the United States Attorney General, discussing cases before the Supreme Court and helping to navigate the administration's appeal strategy.
And the matter is not only in the government.
Carrie Severino fulfills the duties of chief legal counsel for the Crisis Network of the Judiciary, a group dedicated to the support of candidates for Trump. In December, her group launched a national cable and digital advertising campaign for $ 1.5 million, aimed at confirming conservative judges.
William S. Consovoy, working in private practice – currently in the federal court in Boston, challenges the use of the Harvard race race in admission plans. Totally, former Thomas employees are working on efforts that could ultimately be brought to the Supreme Court and remedy the precedent.
To be sure, former clerks do not close with Thomas, but the huge number of Thomas officials currently working in the administration is unusual.
This does not mean that Thomas has enough votes in court for some of his thoughts. But he is a prolific writer, even if he is one, just as Justice William Renkwist, before he became chief judge in the mid-1980s.
It is almost impossible to get to the head of justice on the occasion of retirement.
But one thing is clear: Thomas writes with the future in mind.