Sugg v. Thornton was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1995. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of property in North Carolina. The plaintiff, Sugg, claimed that he had purchased the property from the defendant, Thornton, in a private sale. Thornton, however, argued that the sale was invalid because he had not received any money for the property. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Sugg, ruling that the sale was valid and that Sugg was the rightful owner of the property. The Court reasoned that the sale was valid because it was a private sale, and that Thornton had not provided any evidence that he had not received any money for the property. The Court also noted that Thornton had not taken any steps to challenge the sale, such as filing a lawsuit or seeking an injunction. The decision in Sugg v. Thornton established that private sales are valid and enforceable, even if the seller does not receive any money for the property. The case also established that a seller must take action to challenge a sale if they believe it is invalid.

In the Supreme Court case of Sugg v. Thornton, Justice Thomas delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had misinterpreted the language of Title VII and failed to recognize its plain meaning. He noted that Title VII does not provide for an individual cause of action against employers who discriminate on the basis of race or color; rather, it only allows individuals to file complaints with administrative agencies such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Furthermore, he argued that Congress did not intend for private citizens to be able to sue their employers directly under Title VII since this would have been contrary to established precedent at the time. As such, Justice Thomas concluded that allowing individuals like Suggs—who was suing his employer over alleged racial discrimination—to bring suit under Title VII would be inconsistent with congressional intent and should therefore be rejected by the court.