SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
clarence thomas
If Dems Retake Congress, Platner Says 'Compelling Case' Exists for Impeaching 'At Least Two' Supreme Court Justices
"We need to elect people to the Senate who want to wield power like that," the Maine Democratic candidate said.
Apr 08, 2026
US Senate hopeful Graham Platner wants Democrats to "deal with" the Supreme Court if they retake power in November and launch oversight and possible impeachments to remove justices from office.
Amid President Donald Trump's historic unpopularity, Democrats are heavily favored to retake the House of Representatives and have gained momentum in the Senate, where Platner's bid to unseat five-term incumbent Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) could prove decisive.
But the Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority has the potential to effectively veto any significant actions a future Democratic Congress or president may seek to take, despite increasing doubts among the American public about its legitimacy and impartiality.
Its image as an independent arbiter of justice has come under further scrutiny as multiple justices have been embroiled in corruption scandals. This is where Platner believes Democrats could have options.
"There is structural power in the Senate to deal with the Supreme Court," the 41-year-old Marine-turned-oyster farmer told a crowd of supporters during an event this weekend.
He said that if Democrats get a majority, "at that point, I very much think that we need to be exercising ethics oversight over the court."
Unlike lower court judges, who must comply with a binding ethics code by avoiding partisan campaigning, disclosing conflicts of interest, and recusing themselves in cases where impartiality may be called into question, Supreme Court justices do not have to adhere to these rules.
Although the Supreme Court did adopt an ethics code for the first time in 2023, it is voluntary, and legal groups like the New York City Bar have described it as unenforceable and far short of what is necessary.
Platner said that "if we held Supreme Court justices to the same standards that we held federal judges, there is a compelling case for the impeachment and removal of at least two."
While he did not specify which two justices he believed could be impeached, it is highly likely that he was referring to Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, two of the furthest right justices, whom he has said have helped transform the court into a "political action wing... of conservatism."
In 2023, ProPublica published an investigation exposing that Thomas had, for years, accepted gifts from GOP megadonor Harlan Crow, including trips on his private jet and superyacht, as well as $6,000-per-month tuition for his grandnephew. None of these were reported on the justice's ethics disclosures.
It was also revealed that his wife, Ginni Thomas, was heavily involved with right-wing activist groups with business before the Supreme Court, including those that pushed discredited voter fraud claims to overturn Trump's loss in the 2020 election.
Alito, meanwhile, was revealed to have taken a luxury fishing trip to Alaska with the billionaire hedge fund tycoon Paul Singer, who was directly involved or had financial ties to several entities with business before the court, including a right-wing pro-business group that was pushing to have the court block then-President Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness policy.
The justice has also been accused of expressing support for Christian nationalism after a flag was seen flying outside his residence that appeared to express solidarity with the movement and with those who stormed the US Capitol on January 6, 2021. A documentarian has also published recordings of the justice speaking about how America must be returned to a "place of Godliness."
Some Democrats have also raised the possibility of impeaching Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who has been accused of lying during his confirmation hearings in 2018 when he was faced with allegations of sexual assault from a former classmate.
Right-wing control of the Supreme Court over the past decade has fundamentally altered the American political landscape by rolling back advancements to reproductive and LGBTQ+ rights, gutting the Voting Rights Act, and hindering environmental regulation.
And as Trump has expressed open contempt for constitutional limits on his power, the court has often indulged him, siding with his administration more than 80% of the time in emergency docket rulings during his second term while granting him broad "immunity" from prosecution for crimes committed while in office.
In addition to impeaching justices, Platner has called for Congress to expand the Supreme Court's size the next time a Democrat is in the White House, which can be done with a simple majority vote provided the filibuster is suspended.
"But to make that happen," Platner said, "we need to elect people to the Senate who want to wield power like that, who understand that power matters, that it's real and you can use it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Cautious Celebration as Supreme Court Allows Marriage Equality to Remain Law of the Land
"We cannot take those protections for granted," said Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, who helped to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide a decade ago.
Nov 11, 2025
In one of vanishingly few US Supreme Court rulings protecting equal rights, the majority-conservative court on Monday rejected efforts to overturn the decade-old precedent of marriage equality.
Without issuing a comment, the court denied an appeal from Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who was ordered to pay $360,000 in compensation after she refused to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple in defiance of the precedent set by the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision.
Amid a flurry of rulings that have rolled back sexual and reproductive freedom in other realms—including for the LGBTQ+ community—the court's refusal to hear Davis' appeal was considered a small but still invigorating victory.
“The bar is in hell,” wrote Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz on social media. “But this is a win for decency and compassion.”
The ruling came as a relief to advocates for equal rights, who long feared that marriage equality might soon become the next target as the conservative movement grows increasingly hostile to the LGBTQ+ community.
In 2022, as the court's right-wing majority overturned the right to an abortion in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case, the archconservative Justice Clarence Thomas signaled in a concurring opinion that it should be the start of efforts to fully revise the court's recognition of "substantive due process," that is, the recognition of rights not explicitly granted by the US Constitution.
He questioned not just the right of same-sex couples to marry, but the court’s entire recognition of the right to privacy established by the 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut ruling, which has been the basis for rulings against bans on homosexual relationships and the right to contraception.
Thomas was one of the four conservative justices who dissented from the majority's ruling in Obergefell. Two others—Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito—also still serve on the court. The other three conservative justices who have been appointed since, all by President Donald Trump during his first term—Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—have remained relatively coy on how they’d rule if marriage equality were to come back up, though they have sided with conservatives in cases that pitted religious liberty against discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ people.
In 2023, the six conservatives ruled that a Christian web designer was allowed to decline services to same-sex weddings, overturning a Colorado law that banned discrimination against gay people. Notably, the designer who brought the case had not actually been asked to design a website for any gay couple, but the court's right-wing majority accepted her case regardless.
This apparent zealousness to intervene in favor of discrimination appeared to be a red flag, but as Harvard University law professor Noah Feldman wrote for Bloomberg, Monday's ruling "is best read as a signal that the conservative majority has little interest in revisiting gay marriage," even as "the conservative constitutional revolution at the Supreme Court remains underway."
He notes that just four justices are required for a case to be heard by the court. And while it has aggressively rolled back the rights of transgender people, ended affirmative action, and recognized unprecedented executive authority for President Donald Trump, when it comes to same-sex marriage, "their silence is noteworthy."
Public support for marriage equality has grown considerably in the decade since Obergefell. In July 2015, a month after the court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, 58% of Americans said in a Gallup poll that they agreed that same- sex couples should have the same rights as opposite-sex pairs. That number ballooned to a high of 71% in 2023, and even as attacks on LGBTQ+ people have ratcheted up intensely within the conservative movement, support for marriage equality remains stubbornly steady—68% of Americans still say gay marriages should be valid.
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, who represented two of the plaintiffs in the 2015 case, said that while she welcomes the court's decision Monday not to erode the hard-won rights of gay people further, advocates should not become complacent.
"I am relieved for today’s decision reaffirming same-sex couples’ continued right to dignity and protection under the law, but we cannot take those protections for granted," Nessel said in a news release. “Members of this Supreme Court have already told us they are willing to overturn Obergefell. It’s only a matter of time before they do.”
Her state of Michigan is one of more than two dozen in which same-sex marriage would become illegal or face restrictions if Obergefell is overturned. She said that Monday's decision "allows us a reprieve, an opportunity to bring our state Constitution into alignment with the protections our residents are entitled to and have enjoyed for more than a decade. Now is the time to act."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Porn ID Ruling 'A Blow to Freedom of Speech and Privacy,' Says ACLU
"The legislature claims to be protecting children from sexually explicit materials, but the law will do little to block their access, and instead deters adults from viewing vast amounts of First Amendment-protected content," said Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the ACLU.
Jun 27, 2025
Free speech advocates are sounding the alarm after the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday upheld a Texas law requiring users to share personal identification to view adult material online.
The law, which mandates websites that host sexual content to require users to provide photo IDs or biometric scans to verify that they are over 18, was challenged by several adult websites and free speech organizations. They argued that it violated adult users' First Amendment rights.In a 6-3 decision along ideological lines siding with Texas, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the majority opinion that the law "only incidentally burdens the protected speech of adults," and therefore did not require "strict scrutiny" from the Court.
But advocates for free speech and online security have warned that such laws—which have passed in 24 states—have the potential to be much more invasive, both to personal expression and privacy.
Following the ruling, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) decried the Court's decision as "a blow to freedom of speech and privacy."
"The Supreme Court has departed from decades of settled precedents that ensured that sweeping laws purportedly for the benefit of minors do not limit adults' access to First Amendment-protected materials," said Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the ACLU. "The legislature claims to be protecting children from sexually explicit materials, but the law will do little to block their access, and instead deters adults from viewing vast amounts of First Amendment-protected content."
The ACLU's concerns echoed those expressed in Justice Elena Kagan's dissenting opinion, in which she said the court should have applied "strict scrutiny," which would have required the bill to use the least restrictive means possible to meet its goal. Applying strict scrutiny is standard in cases involving content related restrictions on expression, and has been used in past cases related to obscenity.
"No one doubts that the distribution of sexually explicit speech to children, of the sort involved here, can cause great harm," she added. "But the First Amendment protects those sexually explicit materials, for every adult. So a state cannot target that expression, as Texas has here, any more than is necessary to prevent it from reaching children."
During oral arguments in January, Kagan warned of the potential "spillover danger" if the court were to weaken strict scrutiny for free expression cases.
"You relax strict scrutiny in one place," she said, "and all of a sudden, strict scrutiny gets relaxed in other places."
Friday's ruling comes as red states have introduced laws increasingly cracking down on public discussion of sex and gender.
These have included laws banning sexual education or the discussion of LGBTQ+ identities in schools, bans on books containing "divisive" topics including sex and gender, and bans on drag shows in public spaces. Many states have also introduced laws allowing parents to challenge books containing "divisive" concepts, including discussions of sexuality and LGBTQ+ identity.
On Friday, the Supreme Court also ruled on religious liberty grounds in favor of parents' rights to opt their children out from classes with storybooks involving LGBTQ+ characters.
"As it has been throughout history, pornography is once again the canary in the coal mine of free expression," said Alison Boden, executive director of the Free Speech Coalition, which was one of the plaintiffs in the Texas case.
Beyond burdening adults' free expression, critics warned that requiring photo identification poses a privacy risk to porn viewers.
The conservative justices defended the law as tantamount to others that require identification to access alcohol or to enter adults-only spaces. In his majority opinion, Thomas wrote that the law is "appropriately tailored because it permits users to verify their ages through the established methods of providing government-issued identification and sharing transactional data."
However, Kagan argued in her dissent that requiring photo ID for online activity is fundamentally different because the user has no idea if their identifying information is being tracked or logged.
"It is turning over information about yourself and your viewing habits—respecting speech many find repulsive—to a website operator, and then to… who knows?" she said.
Evan Greer, founder of the online privacy advocacy group Fight for the Future, wrote on BlueSky that the ruling bodes ill for internet privacy more generally.
"This is bad in a variety of ways that have nothing to do with porn and everything to do with expanding invasive surveillance of every single internet user, including all adults," Greer said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular