Thomas' remarks have raised concerns among critics.
The Supreme Court analyst said that it is the first time that a Supreme Court justice appears to endorse the view increasingly prevalent among conservatives that private social media platforms should potentially be subject to significant government regulation.
"Justice Thomas's opinion represents the first time that we have seen a Supreme Court Justice appear to endorse the view increasingly prevalent among conservatives that private social media platforms should potentially be subject to significant government regulation notwithstanding the First Amendment," said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law.
No other justice joined Thomas's opinion, which came as he agreed with the court's decision to dismiss a case concerning Trump's use of Twitter when he was President.
Thomas said the court was right to dismiss the case that predated the election and Twitter's decision to ban Trump after the Capitol Hill riot.
However, Thomas added the issue caused him to think about the "principal legal difficulty that surrounds" a digital platform, specifically the concentration of power in the hands of so few owners at social media companies.
Today's digital platforms, Thomas argued, "provide avenues for historically unprecedented amounts of speech," but he said it also concentrates control "of so much speech in the hands of a few private parties."
In particular, he pointed out that Twitter was able to remove any person from the platform -- "even the President of the United States."
"As Twitter made clear, the right to cut off speech lies most powerfully in the hands of private digital platforms," Thomas said.
This is not the first time that Thomas has made such controversial comments.
In 2019, he used one abortion dispute to write a concurrence about his fear that abortion could become a "tool of eugenic manipulation."
In 2019, he called for reconsideration of a landmark First Amendment precedent New York Times v. Sullivan, which makes it more difficult for public figures to sue for defamation, opining that the decision that was a "policy-driven" decision "masquerading as constitutional law.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Business Standard has always strived hard to provide up-to-date information and commentary on developments that are of interest to you and have wider political and economic implications for the country and the world. Your encouragement and constant feedback on how to improve our offering have only made our resolve and commitment to these ideals stronger. Even during these difficult times arising out of Covid-19, we continue to remain committed to keeping you informed and updated with credible news, authoritative views and incisive commentary on topical issues of relevance.
We, however, have a request.
As we battle the economic impact of the pandemic, we need your support even more, so that we can continue to offer you more quality content. Our subscription model has seen an encouraging response from many of you, who have subscribed to our online content. More subscription to our online content can only help us achieve the goals of offering you even better and more relevant content. We believe in free, fair and credible journalism. Your support through more subscriptions can help us practise the journalism to which we are committed.
Support quality journalism and subscribe to Business Standard.