Clarence Thomas' Supreme Court Move Leaves Legal Experts Stunned

Legal analysts have sharply criticized Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas for endorsing Missouri's right to sue over Donald Trump's hush money case.

In May, Trump was convicted on 34 counts related to falsifying business records, with sentencing scheduled for September. Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey contended that sentencing Trump before the election violated the rights of Missouri voters. Bailey also argued that the gag order imposed on Trump during the trial infringed on voter rights.

Although the Supreme Court ruled that Missouri lacked standing to pursue the case, both Thomas and fellow conservative Justice Samuel Alito disagreed with this decision.

MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin expressed her astonishment on X (formerly Twitter), noting the contrast with the Supreme Court's decision earlier this year in the mifepristone abortion pill case, where the Court ruled that parties not directly impacted by the issue could not bring a case.

Rubin remarked, “It’s astonishing that Thomas and Alito would permit Missouri to sue New York over the gag order in the hush money case, especially after the unanimous Court’s stringent stance on standing in the mifepristone case.”

Trump's conviction involves payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. His legal team is now seeking to overturn the verdict, following the recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity.

During the hush money trial, Judge Juan Merchan imposed a $10,000 fine on Trump for violating a gag order that prohibited him from criticizing witnesses or jurors.

On Monday, the Supreme Court denied Bailey's request to file a complaint against Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who prosecuted Trump. With the denial of the complaint, the Court deemed the relief Bailey sought as irrelevant.

Thomas and Alito concurred with the Court's decision to deny Bailey's relief but asserted that the case should have been heard.

Joyce Vance, a former prosecutor and liberal legal analyst, explained the reasoning behind Thomas and Alito’s stance in her blog, Civil Discourse. Vance, who is also a frequent critic of Trump, suggested that Thomas and Alito's decision might stem from their strong belief in "original jurisdiction"—the principle that disputes between states can be directly brought to the Supreme Court.

“Justices Thomas and Alito have consistently advocated that once a dispute invokes original jurisdiction, the parties should be allowed to file their case, even if they are not entitled to relief,” Vance wrote.

She added, “While you may disagree with their stance, the troubling aspect of today's ruling is not that they made an unconventional decision in another Trump case, but that they participated in the case at all.”