Thomas Urges Supreme Court to ‘Reexamine' 169-Year-Old Judicial Doctrine

United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas used a routine bankruptcy case to raise broader doubts about a long-standing legal principle on Thursday, calling on the justices to reconsider a doctrine dating back to the 19th century.

In a concurring opinion on a unanimous decision, Thomas said the court should "reexamine" the doctrine of judicial estoppel, which is a rule barring litigants from taking contradictory positions in different court proceedings. He questioned its legitimacy and historical footing.

"Lower federal courts have applied this doctrine broadly without clear authority to do so," Thomas wrote, adding that in a future case, "we should reexamine it."

What the Case Was About

The case, Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, arose from a dispute over whether a man who failed to disclose a potential lawsuit during bankruptcy proceedings could later pursue that claim in court.

Thomas Keathley filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 2019, agreeing to repay creditors in full over time. While the bankruptcy case was still open, he was involved in a car accident and retained a lawyer to bring a personal injury claim, but did not disclose that claim to the bankruptcy court.

When he later filed a lawsuit, the defendant company argued the case should be thrown out under judicial estoppel, which is meant to prevent litigants from contradicting earlier sworn positions.

Lower courts sided with the company, finding that Keathley's failure to disclose the claim could not be considered an "inadvertent" mistake under existing Fifth Circuit precedent.

The Doctrine Thomas Wants Reexamined

Judicial estoppel is designed to protect the integrity of the court system by preventing parties from "deliberately changing positions according to the exigencies of the moment."

Although it is now widely used in federal courts, Thomas argued that its foundations are surprisingly weak.

According to his concurrence, the doctrine was first recognized in an 1857 Tennessee state court decision, making it roughly 169 years old, but it remained a fringe concept for decades and was not widely adopted by federal courts until much later.

Even as late as the mid-20th century, some courts declined to apply it, with one appeals court noting it had not been embraced by "anything approaching a majority of jurisdictions."

Despite that history, Thomas said the doctrine has since become "commonplace" in federal litigation-often with little statutory grounding or clear Supreme Court precedent.

He also raised concerns about how broadly it is applied, noting that it can bar claims based on positions taken in entirely separate cases involving different parties.

This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.

2026 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.

This story was originally published June 11, 2026 at 9:53 AM.