Questions — and rumors — are swirling after U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas made an unannounced visit to Capitol Hill, where at least one intrepid reporter was quick to notice and ask questions.

MS NOW’s Mychael Schnell caught up with the justice but did not get many answers.

When asked who he was meeting with, Justice Thomas first responded, “What did you say?”

Asked two more times, he replied, “Oh, nobody.”

“You weren’t meeting with the Speaker?” Schnell pressed.

“Oh, God, no,” Thomas declared.

“So what are you doing up here?” Schnell then asked.

“Oh, just walking,” Thomas said.

“No meetings in particular?” Schnell continued.

Thomas appeared to respond, “I’m not gonna tell you about it,” but his words were unclear as he chuckled.

Schnell also asked Justice Thomas if he would give her a “sneak peek” of some of the final decisions being handed down on Tuesday.

“Nope,” he replied.

He would not answer a series of additional questions, largely aimed at determining the purpose of his visit.

“You have good questions,” was all Thomas would say.

“Any comment at all?” Schnell finally asked.

“No, no, no, sir,” Thomas offered.

Politico’s Meredith Lee Hill reported that Thomas “did not meet with House GOP leadership,” and Republicans “believe he was here for the House physician office, per sources.”

Online commenters offered their own thoughts.

“Yeah, this does not pass the smell test. The Supreme Court should state for what reasons Justice Thomas was at the Capitol,” wrote Carlos David Gamez, a disability advocate.

“This is alarming. Why would a Supreme Court justice randomly show up at the Capitol? There is clearly a reason, and the American people deserve to know,” wrote political commentator Vince Wilson.

Others suggested the jurist, who just turned 78 last week and has sat on the nation’s highest court since 1991, is retiring.

The court on Monday handed President Donald Trump three devastating blows, including two opinions that went against the administration’s positions, as well as refusing to review lower-court rulings that require Trump to pay journalist E. Jean Carroll $5 million.

NEW: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas just walked through the House side of the Capitol.

He didn’t say why he was here. But told me he was meeting with “nobody.”

I said tomorrow will be a big day at the court. “I guess so,” he responded.

Would he give a sneak peak of… pic.twitter.com/BjtAiffDJe

— Mychael Schnell (@mychaelschnell) June 29, 2026

Image via Wikimedia Commons/Public Domain

The U.S. Supreme Court has “declared war” on American democracy, on “modern society,” and on “everything it takes to function in the 21st century,” warns Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, after the court expanded presidential powers once again. Six of the court’s members, presumably the conservative wing, “are fundamentally hostile to democracy, fundamentally hostile to the modern world and determined to put the catastrophically bad leader that we currently have sitting in the White House in charge of everything, which is a nightmare scenario on every level.”

Krugman scorches the court for ruling that presidents can fire, without cause, the heads of independent federal agencies (except the Federal Reserve). In doing so, the court overturned a 91-year-old precedent.

He explains that in a modern society, “the agencies that operate the U.S. government and basically run our society are supposed to be professional. They’re supposed to be following their legal mandate. They’re not supposed to be personal tools of a dictator in the White House.”

Krugman says that the court has now given “essentially dictatorial powers to the occupant of the White House,” while also making it extremely difficult for the economy and for society to function.

He explains that in today’s complicated world, ground rules are necessary. Offering the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as an example, Krugman says that producers need to know that their products will be approved based on merit, and not on “spurious grounds.”

“And what would cause those decisions to happen?” he asks. “Well, how about the fact that some businesses are better at the business of bribing the president and his family than others. And if you think that this is outlandish — you know, a few years ago you might have said this was outlandish, things like that wouldn’t really happen — well, as we speak, these things are happening all the time.”

Ultimately, Krugman says, America cannot continue on this path — and he calls for some form of restructuring or constraining of the Supreme Court.

“This is a clear argument that says we have to one way or another disempower the Supreme Court. I don’t know enough to tell you what is the best route to do that but court packing or something else is going to have to happen.”

Professor of law Barb McQuade, commenting on the court’s opinion, wrote, “Today’s decision in Slaughter will destroy the independence of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which will have a cascading effect on all federal employees, who have been free from political interference for 150 years. The spoils system is back, baby!”

Image via Shutterstock

Three years ago a civil jury held that Donald Trump was liable for sexually abusing and defaming journalist E. Jean Carroll, and awarded her $5 million, which Trump was ordered to pay. He has been fighting the case ever since.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court rebuffed Trump’s efforts, refusing to review lower court rulings that upheld the civil judgment against Trump.

“Monday’s decision is a major blow to Mr. Trump, likely marking the end of his legal efforts to contest the jury verdict finding that he assaulted Ms. Carroll in the mid-1990s,” The New York Times reported.

In “E. Jean Carroll’s Defamation Win Is Now Final,” professor of law Joyce Vance, a former federal prosecutor known for her legal analysis on MS NOW and several podcasts, declared the case had run its course.

“The Court has officially declined Trump’s bid to have it reverse the jury’s verdict in [Carroll’s] favor in the defamation case she brought after he said she was lying about being sexually assaulted by him in a New York City department store dressing room,” Vance wrote Monday. “She wins, and the verdict stands.”

“This case is, and has always been, about a jury that believed E. Jean Carroll and thought Trump was lying. That’s the bottom line,” Vance added. “With that one simple line of text in a long order, Trump now has to pay up.”

President Trump appears to be unwilling to accept that outcome.

“Surprisingly, the Supreme Court declined to ‘review’ a Fake Case brought against me by a woman I never met (Decades old celebrity photo line, standing with her husband, does not count!),” he wrote on Truth Social. “I will continue the fight against this Weaponization and Lawfare Case against me, including the ridiculous claim of Defamation, with all of my power and strength.”

“This Case is really against the United States of America, and all it stands for, and should never be allowed to happen to another President, or Candidate to be!” he insisted. “New York State created a Law, for an instant speck of time, going back many decades, in order to wrongfully ‘nab’ me. It was tailormade, and this Injustice cannot be allowed to stand!”

It is unclear what other means Trump believes he has to overturn the result.

“Where is he planning to continue fighting it?” one online critic asked. “The Super Duper More-Than-Supreme Court?”

Image via Reuters