recognized. Local regulations may require that theater buildings be constructed with flame- proof materials for floors, walls, seats, curtains, and carpeting; that, in general, a certain amount of light be on even during performances; and that exits large enough to handle crowds be placed at different sides of the building and clearly marked. Theaters are ordinarily required to have ushers on duty to maintain order by supervising the movement of crowds. Ticket Sales To protect the public, a number of communities have enacted statutes regulating the resale of tickets for any kind of theater or show in order to discourage speculation, which weakens the market for the tickets. Such measures also prevent scalping (the process whereby large numbers of tickets purchased at the normal price in order to create a shortage are then sold at extremely inflated prices). A state or local government may make it a criminal offense to sell a ticket for more than the price stamped on it. Frequently the statutory scheme that pro- scribes resale of tickets for more than the printed price includes special provisions for ticket brokers, who are in the business of selling tickets for a number of theaters to members of the public. Brokers are strictly regulated to protect the public from FRAUD, EXTORTION, and exorbitant rates. A dishonest broker could possibly sell tickets for performances not scheduled, sell seats already sold, or scalp the tickets. For the public protection, a state or city may require anyone reselling tickets to be licensed and may revoke the license of any broker who abuses the privilege. Obscenity Communities have a proper interest in placing limitations upon OBSCENITY in theaters. It is deemed appropriate to protect unsuspecting or unwilling adults from assaults of indecenc y and to protect children from graphic displays of PORNOGRAPHY. The U.S. SUPREME COURT has interpreted the Constitution to permit indivi- duals to view obscene materials in the privacy of their own homes; however, because theat ers are public places, the law may regulate inde- cent exhibitions, even where everyone present expected to view pornography and willingly entered. Some states, however, decline to prose- cute the spectators under such circumstances. Exhibitors of lewd films in coin-operated booths in amusement arcades cannot claim any right of privacy even though patrons view the films alone in the booths. CENSORSHIP of obscene shows is lawful; however, it is sometimes difficult to determine what is obscene. The U.S. Supreme Court has decided that works that describe or depict sexual conduct can be regulated if, when taken as a whole, they appeal to a prurient interest, portray sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. In addition, the Supreme Court has said that communities may apply their own local standards in judging shows, which has led to conflicting decisions in various courts. A state can regulate theaters and shows in order to control pornography in a number of ways. For example, a state might require distributors or exhibitors who handle films commercially to be licensed and may revoke the license of anyone who traffics in obscene films. Certain states and municipalities have set up a board of censors who are authorized to view films prior to their exhibition to the public. The concept of censors hip by PRIOR RESTRAINT is in direct conflict with notions of free speech. CROSS REFERENCES Entertainment Law; First Amendment; Freedom of Speech; Movie Rating; X Rating. THEFT A criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person’s consent. The term theft is sometimes used synony- mously with LARCENY. Theft, however, is actually a broader term , encompassing many forms of deceitful taking of property, including swin- dling, EMBEZZLEMENT, FALSE PRETENSES, IDENTITY THEFT , and Internet theft of copyrighted materi- als. Some states categorize all these offenses under a single statutory crime of theft. CROSS REFERENCES Burglary; Robbery. THEODOSIAN CODE The legal code of the Roman Empire promulgated in A.D. 438 by the emperor Theodosius II of the East and accepted by the emperor Valentinian III of the West. The Theodosian Code was designed to eliminate superfluous material and to organize GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 18 THEFT the complex body of imperial constitutions that had been in effect since the time of the emperor Constantine I (306–337). It was derived pri- marily from two private collections: the Grego- rian Code, or Codex Gregorianus, a collection of constitutions from the emperor Hadrian (117–138) down to Constantine compiled by the Roman jurist Gregorius in the fifth century; and the Hermogenian Code, or Codex Hermo- genianus, a collection of the constitutions of the emperors Diocletian (284–305) and Maximian (285–305) prepared by the fifth-century jurist Hermogenes to supplement the Gregorian Code. The Theodosian Code was one of the sources of the CIVIL LAW, the system of Roman JURISPRUDENCE compiled and codified in the CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS in A.D. 528–534 under the direction of the Byzantine emperor Justinian. Until the twelfth century, when the CORPUS JURIS Civilis became known in the West, the Theo- dosian Code was the only authentic body of civil law in widespread use in Western Europe. FURTHER READINGS Matthews, John. 2000. Laying Down the Law: A Study of the Theodosian Code. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press. The Theodosian Code and Novels, and the Sirmondian Constitutions. 2001. Trans. by Clyde Pharr. Union, N.J.: Lawbook Exchange. CROSS REFERENCE Roman Law. THIRD AMENDMENT The Third Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Ratified in 1791, the Third Amendment to the U.S. Constitution sets forth two basic requirements. During times of peace, the military may not house its troops in private residences without the consent of the owners. During times of war, the military may not house its troops in private residences except in accordance with established legal procedure. By placing these limitations on the private quartering of combatants, the Third Amend- ment subordinates military authority to civilian control and safeguards against abuses that can be perpetrated by standing armies and profes- sional soldiers. The Third Amendment traces its roots to ENGLISH LAW. In 1689, the English BILL OF RIGHTS prohibited the maintenance of a standing army in time of peace without the consent of Parliament. Less than a century later Parliament passed the Quartering Acts of 1765 and 1774, which authoriz ed British troops to take shelter in colonial homes by military FIAT (order). During the American Revolution, British Red Coats frequently relied on this authorization, making themselves unwelcome guests at private residences throughout the colonies. By 1776 the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE was assailing the king of England for quartering “large bodies of troops among us” and keeping “standing armies without the consent of our legislature.” Against this backdrop, a number of colonies enacted laws prohibiting the nonconsensual quartering of soldiers. The Delaware Declara- tion of Rights of 1776, provided that “no soldier ought to be quartered in any house in time of peace without the consent of the owner, and in time of w ar in such a manner only as the legislature shall direct.” Similar expressions appeared in the Maryland Declaration of Rights of 1776, the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights of 1780, and the New Hampshire Bill of Rights of 1784. Originally drafted by JAMES MADISON in 1789, the Third Amendment embo- dies the spirit and intent of its colonial antecedents. Primarily because the United States has not been regularly confronted by standing armies during its history, the Third Amendment has produced little litigation. The SUPREME COURT has never had occasion to decide a case based solely on the Third Amendment, though the court has cited its protections against the quarter- ing of soldiers as a basis for the constitutional right to privacy (Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510 [1965]). In lower federal courts, Third Amend- ment claims typically have been rejected without much discussion. In 1982, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued the seminal interpretation of the Third Amendment in Engblom v. Carey, 677 F.2d 957 (1982). Engblom raised the issue of whether the state of New York had violated the Third Amendment by housing members of the NATIONAL GUARD at the residences of two correctional officers who were living in a dormitory on the grounds of a state PENITEN- TIARY . The governor had activated the guard GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION THIRD AMENDMENT 19 to quell disorder at the penitentiary during a protracted labor strike. Although the Second Circuit Court did not decide whether the Third Amendment had been violated, it made three important rulings. First, the court ruled that under the Due Process Clause of the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, the Third Amendment applies to action taken by the state governments no less than it applies to actions by the federal government. Second, the court ruled that the two correctional officers were “owners” of their residences for the purposes of the Third Amendment, even though they were renting their dormitory room from the state of New York. Any person who lawfully possesses or controls a particular dwelling, the court said, enjoys a reasonable expectation of privacy in that dwelling that precludes the nonconsensual quartering of soldiers. Third, the court ruled that members of the National Guard are “soldiers” governed by the strictures of the Third Amendment. Property owners have attempted to use the Third Amendment in concert with the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause to challenge alleged interference with their property. In Custer County Action Association v. Garvey, 256 F.3d 1024 (10th Circ.2001), Colorado property own- ers challenged an order by the FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA) that changed the use of airspace above the plaintiffs’ land. The FAA order permitted military fighter jets to practice in this airspace and shifted the flight paths of commercial aircraft so that the plaintiffs would be subjected to increased noise. The plaintiffs claimed they had a Third Amendment right “to refuse military aircraft training in airspace within the immediate reaches of their property,” and that military overflights occurring in the imme- diate reaches of their property during peacetime, and without their consent, were unconstitu- tional. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged that judicial interpretation of the Third Amendment was “nearly nonexistent” but concluded that the amendment was limited to real property and not airspace. The court stated that if taken to its logical extreme, every property owner in the U.S. would have to consent to the use of airspace by the military. It did not believe that “the Framers intended the Third Amend- ment to be used to prevent the military from regulated, lawful use of airspace above private property without the property owners’ consent.” FURTHER READINGS Barron, Jerome, and Thomas Dienes. 2006. First Amendment Law in a Nutshell. 6th ed. St. Paul, MN: Thomson West. Fields, William S. 1989. “The Third Amendment: Constitu- tional Protection from the Involuntary Quartering of Soldiers.” Military Law Review 124. Levy, Leonard Williams. 1999. Origins of the Bill of Rights. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press. CROSS REFERENCES Bill of Rights; Incorporation Doctrine. THIRD DEGREE A colloquial term used to describe unlawful methods of coercing an individual to confess to a criminal offense by overcoming his or her free will through the use of psychological or physical violence. The least serious grade of a specific crime—the grades being classified by the law according to the circumstancesunder which the crime is committed— for which the least punishment specified by statute will be imposed. THIRD PARTY A generic legal term for any individual who does not have a direct connection with a legal transac- tion but who might be affected by it. A third-party beneficiary is an individual for whose benefit a contract is created even though that person is a stranger to both the agreement and the consideration. Such an individual can usually bring suit to enforce the contract or promise made for his or her benefit. A third-party action is another name for the procedural device of IMPLEADER, which is used in a civil actio n by a defendant who wants to bring a third party into a lawsuit because that party will ultimately be liable for all, or part of, the damages that may be awarded to the plaintiff. THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT The Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Con- stitution reads: Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdic- tion. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution were approved by Congress and ratified by the states GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 20 THIRD DEGREE after the U.S. CIVIL WAR. Known collectively as the Civil War Amendments, they were designed to protect individual rights. The Thirteenth Amendment forbids INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE or SLAVERY, except where the condition is imposed on an individual as punishment for a crime. For many decades, however, the goals of the Civil War Amendments were frustrated. Due perhaps to the waning public support for postwar Reconstruction and the nation’s lack of sensitivity to individual rights, the U.S. Supreme Court severely curtailed the application of the amendments. The Supreme Court thwarted the amendments in two ways: by restrictively interpreting the substantive provisions of the amendments and by rigidly confining Con- gress’s enforcement power. Congress enacted a number of statutes to enforce the provisions of the Civil War Amend- ments, but by the end of the nineteenth century, most of those statutes had been overturned by the courts, repealed, or nullified by subsequent legislation. For example, Congress enacted the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT of 1875 (18 Stat. 336), which provided that all persons should have full and equal enjoyment of public inns, parks, theaters, and other places of amusement, regardless of race or color. Although some federal courts upheld the constitutionality of the act, many courts struck it down. These decisions were then appealed together to the U.S. Supreme Court and became known as the CIVIL RIGHTS CASES, 109 U.S. 3, 3 S. Ct. 18, 27 L. Ed. 835 (1883). The cases involved theaters in New York and California that would not seat African Americans, a hotel in Missouri and a restaurant in Kansas that would not serve African Americans, and a train in Tennessee that would not allow an African American woman in the “ladies” car. The Supreme Court struck down the Civil Rights Act of 1875 by an 8–1 vote, holding that Congress had exceeded its authority to enforce the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court held that private discrimination against African Americans did not violate the Thirteenth Amendment’s ban on slavery. Fol- lowing this decision, several northern and western states began enacting their own bans on discrimination in public places. But many other states did the opposite: they began codifying racial SEGREGATION and discrimination in laws that became known as the JIM CROW LAWS. In 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of PLESSY V. FERGUSON, 163 U.S. 537, 16 S. Ct. 1138, 41 L. Ed. 256, in which it upheld segregation on railroad cars. Des egregationists had hoped that the Supreme Court would acknowledge that the federal government’s power to regulate interstate commerce allowe d it to ban segregation on public transportation. But the Court avoided this issue, holding that this particular railway was a purely local line. In addition, the Court found that the segrega- tion rules did not violate the Thirteenth Amend- ment because they did not establish a state of involuntary servitude, although they did distin- guish between races. In a lone disse nt, Justice JOHN MARSHALL HARLAN argued that the “arbitrary separation of citizens, on the basis of race, while they are on a public highway, is a badge of servitude wholly inconsistent with the civil free- dom and the equality before the law established by the constitution.” During the next six decades, the U.S. Supreme Court continued to uphold segrega- tion of the races in schools, public accommoda- tions, public transportation, and various other aspects of public life, so long as the treatment of the races was equal. The Court refused to hear cases arguing that the Thirteenth Amend- ment was violated by private covenants between whites who agreed not to sell or lease their homes to African Americans. Thu s, the cove- nants were allowed to stand. Gradually, though, the Supreme Court’s narrow view of the Civil War Amendments expanded, resulting in sig- nificant changes in civil and CRIMINAL LAW. This expansion began in 1954, when the Court overturned its decision in Plessy v. Ferguson and outlawed the separate-but-equal doctrine ( BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA, KANSAS, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873 [1954]). Although the Supreme Court had declared invalid the Civil Rights Act of 1875, it had not invalidated an earlier act, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (42 U.S.C.A. § 1982). The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was specifically enacted to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment’s ban on slavery. By 1968 the U.S. Supreme Court was relying on the act to prohibit individuals from discriminating against racial minorities in the sale or lease of housing (Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409, 88 S. Ct. 2186, 20 L. Ed. 2d 1189 [1968]). The Jones decision was issued just weeks after Congress enacted the first federal fair housing laws. In reaching their decision the Supreme Court first had to decide whether Congress had the power to enact the Civil Rights Ac t of GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT 21 1866. Justice POTTER STEWART, writing for the majority, turned to the Thirteenth Amendment and observed that it was adopted to remove the “badges of slavery” and that it gave Congress power to effect that removal. Stewart wrote: Congress has the power under the Thirteenth Amendment rationally to determine what are the badges and the incidents of slavery, and the authority to translate that determi- nation into effective legislation [W]hen racial discrimination herds men into ghettos and makes their ability to buy property turn on the color of their skin, then it too is a relic of slavery. The Supreme Court continues to address issues that arise under the Thirteenth Amend- ment. In the 1988 case of United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931, 108 S. Ct. 2751, 100 L. Ed. 2d 788, the Court explored the meaning of the term involuntary servitude. This case add- ressed the Thirteenth Amendment as well as a federal crimina l statute (18 U.S.C.A. § 1584) that forbids involuntary servitude. At issue in the case were two mentally challenged men in poor health who had been kept la boring on a farm. The men worked seven days per week, 17 hours per day, in itially for $15 per week and then for no pay at all. Their employers used various forms of physical and psychological threats and force to keep the men on the farm. The Court held that “involuntary servitud e” requires more than mere psychological coer- cion; it also requires physical or legal coercion. But, the Court noted, the Thirteenth Amend- ment was designed not only to abolish slavery of African Americans, but also to prevent other forms of compulsory labor akin to that slavery. Observing that the definition of slavery has shifted since the Civil War, courts have held that involuntary servitude does not nece ssarily require a black slave and a white master (Steirer v. Bethlehem Area School District, 789 F. Supp. 1337 [E.D. Pa. 1992]). The courts have found that religious sects may be guilty of subjecting an individual to involuntary servitude if the sect knowingly and willfully holds an individual against her will (United States v. Lewis, 644 F. Supp. 1391 [W.D. Mich.], aff’d, 840 F.2d 1276 (6th Cir. 1986). In addition, forcing a mental patient to perform nontherapeutic labor may be a form of involuntary servitude (Weidenfeller v. Kidulis, 380 F. Supp. 445 [E.D. Wis. 1974]). The Thirteenth Amendment does not pro- hibit the government from compelling citizens to perform certain civic duties, such as serving on a jury (Hurtado v. United States, 410 U.S. 578, 93 S. Ct. 1157, 35 L. Ed. 2d 508 [1973]) or participating in the military draft (Selective Draft Law cases, 245 U.S. 366, 38 S. Ct. 159, 62 L. Ed. 349 [ 1918]). A related statute is the Anti-Peonage Act (42 U.S.C.A. § 1994). Peonage is defined as compulsory service based upon the indebted- ness of the peon to the master. The courts have held that neither the Thirteenth Amendment nor the Anti-Peonage Act prevents a convicted person from being required to work on public streets as part of his sentence (Loeb v. Jennings, 67 S.E. 101 (Ga. 1910), aff’d, 219 U.S. 582, 31 S. Ct. 469, 55 L. Ed. 345 [1911]). In addition, neither of these laws prevents the government from garnishing wages or using the court’s CON- TEMPT power to collect overdue taxes or CHILD SUPPORT (Beltran v. Cohen, 303 F. Supp. 889 [N.D. Cal. 1969]; Knight v. Knight, 996 F.2d 1225 [9th Cir. 1993]). The courts have also held that state workfare programs that require or encourage citizens to obtain gainful employment in order to partici- pate in the state’s public assistan ce programs do not constitute involuntary servitude or peonage (Brogan v. San Mateo County, 901 F.2d 762 [9th Cir. 1990]). In another interesting applica- tion of these laws, a federal court held that a high school program that required all students to complete 60 hours of community service in order to graduate did not constitute involuntary servitude or peonage (Steirer v. Bethlehem Area School District, 789 F. Supp. 1337 [E.D. Pa. 1992]). FURTHER READINGS Azmy, Baher. 2002. “Unshackling the Thirteenth Amend- ment: Modern Slavery and a Reconstructed Civil Rights Agenda.” Fordham Law Review 71 (December). Avail- able online at http://law2.fordham.edu/ihtml/page3. ihtml?imac=1137&pubID=500&articleid=1424; website home page: http://law2.fordham.edu (accessed August 27, 2009). Congressional Quarterly. 2004. Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court. 4th ed. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly. Glasser, Ira. 1991. Visions of Liberty. New York: Arcade. Schleichert, Elizabeth. 1998. The Thirteenth Amendment: Ending Slavery. Berkeley Heights, NJ: Enslow. Smolla, Rodney A. 1997. Federal Civil Rights Acts. 3d ed. Vol. 1. Eagan, MN: Thomson/West. Vorenberg, Michael. 2001. Final Freedom: The Civil War, the Abolition of Slavery, and the Thirteenth Amendment. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 22 THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT Wolff, Tobias Barrington. 2002. “The Thirteenth Amend- ment and Slavery in the Global Economy.” Columbia Law Review 102 (May). CROSS REFERENCES Civil Rights; Fifteenth Amendment; Fourteenth Amendment. v THOMAS, CLARENCE Associate Justice Clare nce Thomas survived tense, nationally televised Senate confirmation hearings in 1991 to become the second African American in U.S. history to reach the Supreme Court. Thomas was born June 23, 1948, in Pin Point, Ge orgia, a small town near Savannah. He attended Savannah’s Saint Benedict the Moor, Saint Pius X High School, and Saint John Vianney Minor Seminary. When he graduated from Saint John in 1967, he was the only African American in his class. After just one year as a seminarian at Missouri’s Immaculate Conception Seminary, Thomas abandoned his plans to become a priest. Instead, he enrolled in Massachusetts’s Holy Cross College. After graduating in 1971, he attended Connecticut’s Yale University Law School and earned a doctor of JURISPRUDENCE degree in 1974. Thomas married Kathy Grace Ambush in 1971. The couple had a son, Jamal Thomas, in 1973, and divorced in 1984. In 1986, Thomas married Virginia Lamp, a political activist and a lawyer for the U.S. LABOR DEPARTMENT. Thomas’s first job out of law school was as assistant to Missouri’s Republican attorney gen- eral John C. Danforth. Thomas specialized in tax and environmental issues. In 1977, he accepted a position in the law department of Monsanto Chemical Corporation. Thomas returned to public service in 1979, when Danforth was elected to the U.S. Senate. Danforth invite d Thomas to work for him as a legislative aide in Washington, D.C. Thomas’s star rose quickly during the Republican administration of President RONALD REAGAN . In 1981 he was appointed assistant secretary in the CIVIL RIGHTS division of the U.S. EDUCATION DEPARTMENT. It was here that his path crossed that of ANITA HILL, a recent Yale Clarence Thomas. STEVE PETTEWAY, COLLECTION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Clarence Thomas 1948– 2000 1975 1950 1950–53 Korean War 1961–73 Vietnam War 1948 Born, Pin Point, Ga. 2002 Wrote majority opinion in Earls v. Tecumseh 2000 Joined majority in Bush v. Gore 1974 Graduated from Yale Law School 1974–77 Served as assistant attorney general of Mo. 1977–79 Worked as staff attorney at Monsanto Chemical Corp. 1981–82 Appointed assistant secretary in civil rights division of U.S. Department of Education 1982 Appointed as chair of EEOC 1990–91 Sat on U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 1994 Joined majorities in Shaw v. Reno and Johnson v. DeGrandy 1991 Appointed to replace Thurgood Marshall on High Court; accused of sexual harassment during confirmation hearings 1991– Served as associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court ▼▼ ▼▼ ❖ ◆◆ ◆ 1993 Joined majority in St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks ◆◆ 1996 Joined majorities in invalidating minority voting districts in Shaw v. Hunt and Bush v. Vera ◆◆◆ ◆ 1992 Joined dissent in Hudson v. McMillan ◆ 2007 My Grandfather’s Son: A Memoir published GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION THOMAS, CLARENCE 23 University Law School graduate. In 1982, when Thomas became chair of the EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (EEOC), Hill also moved to the federal agency. In 1990 Thomas became a federal judge for the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. In 1991, President GEORGE H. W. BUSH nominated Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court. During the confirmation process, Hill accused Thomas of sexually harassing her while she worked for him at the EEOC. After tense hearings before the U.S. Senate, Thomas was confirmed by a vote of 52–48. On October 18, 1991, he was sworn in as the 106th justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Thomas is known as a conservativ e justice, voting to uphold STATES’ RIGHTS and limit the powers of the federal government. He has frequently voted with Justice ANTONIN SCALIA and Chief Justice WILLIAM REHNQUIST.Legalcom- mentators have noted that Thomas rarely asks questions during the Court’s oral arguments. Thomas’ majority opinions have varied by topic. In the area of FOURTH AMENDMENT, Thomas wrote the plurality opinion in Board of Educa- tion of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822, 122 S. Ct. 2559, 153 L. Ed. 2d 735 (2002), in which the Court upheld random drug testing of students engaged in extracurricular activities. The case was unusual in that liberal justice STEPHEN BREYER concurred with Thomas’ opinion, while mod- erate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor sided with a DISSENT written by Justice RUTH BADER GINSBURG. Thomas also wrote the majority opini on in another Fourth Amendment case, Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 126 S. Ct. 2193, 165 L. Ed. 2d 250 (2006), in which the Court upheld searches of parolees where the search was not based on suspicion of wrongdoing. Thomas frequently writes concurring and dissenting opinions. In Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 123 S. Ct. 2325, 156 L. Ed. 2d 304 (2003), Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion in a case involving the University of Michigan’s law school’s AFFIRMATIVE ACTION program. The Court concluded that the program was consti- tutional. In a lengthy opinion, Thomas argued that the law school’s use of race as a factor amounted to DISCRIMINATION, and that any form of racial discrimination should be categorically prohibited by the Constitution. Thomas echoed this opinion when he concurred in Grutter’s companion case, Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244, 123 S. Ct. 2411, 156 L. Ed. 2d 257 (2003). Several books have been published about the Supreme Court’s only African American justice, including two unauthorized biographies published in 2001. Numerous publishers sought the rights to Thomas’s memoirs, and in January 2003, HarperCollins announced that it would publish Thomas’s account of his life. Thomas received an advance of more than $1 million for the book, which was published in 2007. FURTHER READINGS Gerber, Scott Douglas. 1999. First Principles: The Jurisprudence of Clarence Thomas. New York: New York Univ. Press. Thomas, Andrew Peyton. 2001. Clarence Thomas: A Biography. New York: Encounter Books. Thomas, Clarence. 2007. My Grandfather’s Son: A Memoir. New York: HarperCollins. CROSS REFERENCES Hill, Anita Faye; Sexual Harassment “Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill Hearings” (In Focus). v THOMPSON, SMITH Smith Thompson served as associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1824 until his death in 1843. He was among the most experi- enced judges ever appointed to the Supreme Court, and his tenure on the bench linked the constitutional doctrines of the Marshall Court and the Taney Court. A prominent member of the New York bar and chief justice of the New York Supreme Court, Thompson also served as secretary of the navy during President JAMES MONROE ’s administration. As founding vice presi- dent of the American Bible Society, he provided a copy to every officer and enlisted man in the Navy. The Navy named a war ship after him , the U.S.S. Smith Thompson. Thompson was born on January 17, 1768, in New York City, New York. After graduating from Princeton University in 1788, he studied law with Gilbert Livingston, a member of a politically powerful family, and JAMES KENT,a towering figure in U.S. JURISPRUDENCE.Thompson was admitted to the New York bar in 1792. When Kent left the law firm in 1795, Thompson became Livingston’s partner and eventually married Livingston’s daughter Sarah. Thompson was elected to the New York legislature in 1800 and then used Livin gston’s political connections to obtain an appointment to the state supreme court in 1802. He was WE DO NOT START FROM THE PREMISE THAT [STATUTORY] LANGUAGE IS IMPRECISE .INSTEAD, WE ASSUME THAT IN DRAFTING LEGISLATION, C ONGRESS SAID WHAT IT MEANT . —CLARENCE THOMAS GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 24 THOMPSON, SMITH promoted to chief justice in 1814, in which position he presided until 1818. President Monroe appointed Thompson secretary of the navy in 1819. As head of the department, Thompson earned Monroe’s trust and respect. Although he had presidential ambitions, Thompson agreed to accept Mon- roe’s offer of a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, joining the Court in 1824. In 1828, however, he returned to politics, running unsuccessfully for the governorship of New York even though he did not resign from the bench . As a justice, Thompson believed that the states should be allowed to regulate commerce unless their laws directly conflicted with federal law. This position put him in conflict with Chief Justice JOHN MARSHALL and Justice JOSEPH STORY, who interpreted the Constitution’s COMMERCE CLAUSE as giving the federal government the exclusive right to regulate interstate commerce. Thompson wrote the concurring opinion in the landmark case of Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 213, 6 L. Ed. 606 (1827), which held that any law passed after the execution of a contract, in this case a New York insolvency statute, was part of the contract. In another important case, Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 524, 9 L. Ed. 1181 (1838), Thompson supported the right of federal courts to issue a writ of MANDAMUS to compel a cabinet officer to perform nondiscre- tionary, ministerial obligations. Thompson died on December 18, 1843, in Poughkeepsie, New York. FURTHER READING Roper, Donald Malcolm. 1987. Mr. Justice Thompson and the Constitution. New York: Garland. v THOREAU, HENRY DAVID Henry David Thoreau was a nineteenth-century philosopher and writer who denounced materi- alistic modes of living and encouraged people to act according to their own beliefs of right and wrong, even if doing so required breaking the law. His writings, especially his call for nonviolent resistance to government injustice, have inspired many later reformers. Thoreau was born on July 12, 1817, in Concord, Massachuse tts. He graduated from Harvard College in 1837. Durin g his college years, he was greatly influenced by Ralph Waldo Emerson, the leader of the transcendental movement. Thoreau became a personal friend ▼▼ ▼▼ Smith Thompson 1768–1843 17501750 18001800 18251825 18501850 17751775 ❖ 1768 Born, New York City 1775–83 American Revolution ◆ 1788 Graduated from Princeton University ◆ 1792 Admitted to New York bar ◆ 1800 Elected to New York legislature 1802–18 Served on the New York Supreme Court 1812–14 War of 1812 ◆ 1814 Promoted to chief justice 1819–23 Served as secretary of the Navy under Monroe 1827 Wrote concurring opinion in Ogden v. Saunders 1828 Ran unsuccessfully for governor of New York 1823–43 Served as associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court 1843 Died, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. 1832 Dissented against Marshall in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, arguing that an Indian tribe was a "foreign state" under the Constitution ◆◆ ◆ ❖ Smith Thompson. HULTON ARCHIVE/ GETTY IMAGES GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION THOREAU, HENRY DAVID 25 of the eminent author and spent several years as Emerson’s houseguest. Their long friendship was a significant influence on Thoreau’s writing and philosophy. Through Emerson, Thoreau met many other brilliant thinkers and writers of the time, including Margaret Fuller, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and Amos Bronson Alcott. This group of trans- cendentalists supported a plain and simple lifestyle spent searching for the truth beyond one’s taught beliefs. Unlike some of the other transcendentalists, Thoreau lived out many of their beliefs. Thoreau’s first work, A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers, was published in 1849 and is considered the definitive state ment of his transcend alist beliefs. For several years in the 1830s and 1840s, Thoreau refused to pay POLL TAXES to the government as a way of protesting SLAVERY, which the government permitted. The poll tax was levied on all men over the age of 20. Thoreau was finally jailed overnight for this refusal in 1841 but was bailed out by his relatives who paid his back taxes for him. From July 4, 1845, to September 6, 1847, Thoreau lived alone at Walden Pond, Massachu- setts, on a plot of land owned by Emerson. There Thoreau devoted his time to studying nature and writing. While at Walden Pond, he wrote Walden, a collection of essays about nature and human nature that was published in 1854. Later Thoreau became outraged by the Mexican War, which he believed was caused by greed for Mexican land, and by the FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT , which helped slave owners recover escaped slaves. As a result of this outrage, Thoreau wrote an essay that was published in 1849 under the title Civil Disobedience (Thoreau’soriginaltitle was Resistance to Civil Government). The essay contended that each person owes a greater duty to his own conscience and belief system than is owed to the government. Thus, Thoreau encour- aged people to refuse to obey laws that they believe are unjust. Civil Disobedience also supported theories of ANARCHY based upon Thoreau’s insistence that people misuse government. He argued that the Mexican War was started by just a few people who used the U.S. government as a tool. Thoreau maintained that because the U.S. system of government was slow to correct itself through the will of the majority, people should immedi- ately withdraw their support from government and act according to their beliefs of what is right. Thoreau did not approve of violent resis- tance to government, however. He advocated Henry David Thoreau. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Henry David Thoreau 1817–1862 ▼▼ ▼▼ 1800 1875 1850 1825 ◆ ❖ 1812–14 War of 1812 1817 Born, Concord, Mass. ◆ 1837 Graduated from Harvard College 1841 Jailed for nonpayment of poll taxes 1846–48 Mexican War 1845–47 Lived at Walden Pond ◆ ◆ 1854 Walden published 1849 A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers and Civil Disobedience published ◆ ❖ 1862 Died, Concord, Mass. 1859 The Last Days of John Brown published 1861–65 Civil War I WISH TO LIVE DELIBERATELY , TO FRONT ONLY THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF LIFE , AND SEE IF I COULD LEARN WHAT IT HAD TO TEACH . —HENRY DAVID THOREAU GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 26 THOREAU, HENRY DAVID peaceful or passive resistance. In 1859, when JOHN BROWN staged a violent revolt against slavery, Thoreau believed that Brown was right in acting according to his beliefs even though his actions were against the law. Although Thoreau did not admire the violent method that Brown used in trying to stop slavery, Thoreau did admire Brown’s commitment to doing what he believed was right. In 1859 Thoreau published The Last Days of John Brown, an essay describing how Brown’s actions con- vinced many Northerners that slavery must be totally abolished. Thoreau’s writings and philosophy greatly influenced many important world figures. For example, the reformer Leo Tolstoy of Russia, MOHANDAS GANDHI of India, MARTIN LUTHER KING JR ., and other leaders of the U.S. CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT were inspired by Thoreau’s ideas. Thoreau died of tuberculosis on May 6, 1862, in Concord, Massachusetts. FURTHER READINGS Bennett, Jane. 1994. Thoreau’s Nature: Ethics, Politics, and the Wild. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage. Lawry, Robert P. 2002. “Ethics in the Shadow of the Law: The Political Obligation of a Citizen. Case Western Reserve Law Review 52 (spring). Thoreau, Henry David. 2000. Walden; and, Civil Disobedi- ence: Complete Texts with Introduction, Historical Contexts, Critical Essays. Ed. by Paul Lauter. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Turner, Jack. 2009. A Political Companion to Henry David Thoreau. Lexington: Univ. Press of Kentucky. CROSS REFERENCE Anarchism. v THORNBURGH, RICHARD LEWIS Richard Lewis Thornburgh served as U.S. attorney general from 1988 to 1991, working for the Reagan and Bush admi nistrations. A former governor of Pennsylvania, Thornburgh put a strong emphasis on criminal enforcement during his tenure and moved away from the ideological social issues favored by his prede- cessor, EDWIN MEESE III. Thornburgh was born on July 16, 1932, in Carnegie, Pennsylvania. He graduated from Richard L. Thornburgh. AP IMAGES Richard Lewis Thornburgh 1932– ▼▼ ▼▼ 1925 2000 1975 1950 ❖ 1932 Born, Carnegie, Pa. ◆◆ ◆◆ 1939–45 World War I 1950–53 Korean War 1961–73 Vietnam War 1958 Admitted to Pa. bar and joined firm of Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Johnson, and Hutchinson ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆◆ ◆ 1969–75 Served as U.S. attorney for western Pennsylvania 1975–77 Served as assistant U.S attorney general in charge of the Justice Department’s criminal division 1978–87 Served as governor of Pa. 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear accident occurred 1988–91 Served as U.S. attorney general under Reagan and Bush 1989 Initiated the Sentencing Reform Act 1991 Ran unsuccessfully for U.S. Senate 2002 Selected by Justice Department to probe accounting practices at WorldCom 1992–93 Served as undersecretary general of the United Nations 1993 Rejoined Kirkpatrick & Lockhart in their Washington office 1957 Graduated from Univ. of Pittsburgh Law School; editor of the Law Review 1992 Awarded Distinguished Service Medal by American Legion 2003 Where the Evidence Leads published 2006 Received lifetime achievement award from The American Lawyer magazine GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION THORNBURGH, RICHARD LEWIS 27 . Distinguished Service Medal by American Legion 2003 Where the Evidence Leads published 2006 Received lifetime achievement award from The American Lawyer magazine GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION THORNBURGH,. fair housing laws. In reaching their decision the Supreme Court first had to decide whether Congress had the power to enact the Civil Rights Ac t of GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION THIRTEENTH. Grandfather’s Son: A Memoir published GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION THOMAS, CLARENCE 23 University Law School graduate. In 1982, when Thomas became chair of the EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY