Yesterday’s decision from the Supreme Court in Gamble v. United States was on the topic of double jeopardy. However, in his concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas took a little detour to criticize precedent on “abortion rights.”

The majority of Thomas’ 17-page concurring opinion discussed the role of precedent in judicial interpretation. Thomas is a textualist who does not hesitate to reject court precedents when necessary, and he made that explicitly clear yesterday.