Justice Clarence Thomas defended the Supreme Court‘s recent rulings overturning long-standing precedents of the high court, as the justices appear poised to overturn a 90-year-old precedent in their upcoming term.

Thomas argued, while speaking at Catholic University Law School, that the high court should not blindly follow precedents to guide current rulings if the established rulings do not respect the law or the country’s legal tradition.

Recommended Stories

• Former Federal Reserve chairs file 'friend-of-the-court' brief in favor of Lisa Cook
• Trump administration asks Supreme Court to overturn race-based redistricting in Louisiana case
• Advocates warn Colorado 'conversion therapy' ban in Supreme Court case is 'blatant censorship'

“It’s not some sort of automatic deal where you can just say, ‘Stare decisis,’ and then turn off the brain,” Thomas said Thursday evening, per Courthouse News.

In recent years, the Supreme Court has overturned long-standing precedents regarding abortion law, affirmative action, and administrative agency law, among others. The high court will also hear a pair of cases in the coming months, which could result in overturning other long-standing precedents.

While recent major decisions have created headlines, it is not uncommon in the high court’s history for key precedents to be overruled decades later. One of the most famous examples includes the Supreme Court’s 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, which ruled racial segregation was unconstitutional, overturning the infamous 1896 ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson, which had previously deemed it lawful.

Thomas cited the Brown decision as an example in which the high court correctly declined to defer to stare decisis, or the legal principle of following a court’s precedent to guide a ruling.

“I do give respect to the precedent, but the precedent should be respectful of our legal tradition and our country and our laws and be based on something,” Thomas said.

In the high court’s upcoming term, which begins on Oct. 6, the justices will consider two cases that could overturn long-standing precedents in redistricting law and the firing of independent agency heads.

With the case Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court will determine whether Louisiana’s creation of a second black-majority congressional district was unconstitutional under the 14th or 15th Amendments. The ruling could weaken the ability for legal challenges to be brought over congressional maps under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, possibly overturning the high court’s 1986 ruling in Thornburg v. Gingles, which set the current parameters for those legal challenges.

The other case that could overturn a long-standing precedent is Trump v. Slaughter, in which President Donald Trump is seeking to fire a Democrat-appointed Federal Trade Commission commissioner without cause. The case marked the third time an independent agency firing had reached the Supreme Court’s emergency docket, with the justices allowing the previous two sets of firings to continue in the interim.

SUPREME COURT TO HEAR FTC FIRING LAWSUIT TEEING UP CHALLENGE TO 90-YEAR-OLD PRECEDENT

The justices opted to take up the Slaughter case before it had made its way through the lower courts and could be poised to overturn the high court’s 1935 ruling in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which restricts when a president may fire an independent agency head.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in Louisiana v. Callais on Oct. 15, while the high court has said it will hear Trump v. Slaughter in December.