Question: Which judge did the Supreme court judge who decided Millbrook v. United States succeed?

<P0-S0> Clarence Thomas (born June 23, 1948) is an American judge, lawyer, and government official who currently serves as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. <P0-S1>  Thomas succeeded Thurgood Marshall and is the second African American to serve on the court. <SEP> <P1-S0> V.L. v. E.L., 577 U.S. ___ (2016) , is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the adoption rights of same-sex couples. <P1-S1>  In 2007, a Georgia Superior Court granted adoption rights to V.L., the partner of E.L., the woman who gave birth to their three children. <P1-S2>  However, after moving back to Alabama, the couple split up. <P1-S3>  E.L. tried to block V.L. from seeing the children, but V.L. filed a lawsuit seeking visitation and other parental rights. <P1-S4>  On September 18, 2015, the Supreme Court of Alabama ruled that the state did not have to recognize the adoption judgment, saying that the Georgia court misapplied its own state law. <P1-S5>  The court voided the recognition of the adoption judgment in Alabama. <P1-S6>  V.L. petitioned the United States Supreme Court to stay the ruling during her appeal and allow her to see her children. <P1-S7>  On December 14, 2015, the Supreme Court stayed the ruling pending their action on a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by V.L. On March 7, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the decision of the Alabama Supreme Court by per curiam summary disposition. <SEP> <P2-S0> Millbrook v. United States, 569 U.S. ___ (2013) is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that holds that the Federal Tort Claims Act waives the sovereign immunity of the United States for certain intentional torts committed by law enforcement officers. <P2-S1>  The unanimous opinion, delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, holds that law enforcement "employment" duties are not limited to searches, seizures of evidence, or arrests, and, as such, the petitioner can sue. <P2-S2>  As this case revolved around sovereign immunity waivers and not the merits, the Court did not decide upon the merits of the lawsuits. <SEP> <P3-S0> United States v. Hamilton, 3 U.S. 17 (1795) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which a defendant committed on a charge of treason was released on bail, despite having been imprisoned upon a warrant of committal by a district court judge. <P3-S1>  The Judiciary Act of 1789 stated that "upon all arrests in criminal cases, bail shall be admitted, except where the punishment may be death, in which cases it shall not be admitted but by the supreme or a circuit court, or by a justice of the supreme court, or a judge of a district court, who shall exercise their discretion therein, regarding the nature and circumstances of the offence, and of the evidence, and the usages of law." <P3-S2>  Ordinarily, habeas corpus was used to release prisoners held by the judgment of the executive, but not for those who commitment had been authorized by a court order. <P3-S3>  Hamilton's attorney argued that the district court judge did not hold a hearing before issuing a warrant for his commitment to jail and that the affidavits alleging treasonous activity were weak, while the government urged that the Judiciary Act did not give the Supreme Court the jurisdiction to review the district court's decision unless there was new information or misconduct. <P3-S4>  The Supreme Court set bail, but without addressing either attorney's arguments.