Will the US supreme court protect gay and trans people's rights at work?

Will the US supreme court protect gay and trans people\
Will the US supreme court protect gay and trans people\'s rights at work?  

It is said that William Brennan, the great US supreme court justice, liked to greet his incoming law clerks with a bracingly simple definition of constitutional doctrine: five votes. "You can't do anything around here," Brennan would say, wiggling the fingers of his hand, "without five votes".

Five votes. Five votes will presumably frame the court's ruling in a trio of crucial employment-discrimination cases that were argued before the justices on Tuesday. All three cases focus on the scope of protections provided by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars workplace discrimination "because of … sex". Does such a bar prevent discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation? That is the question raised by the first two cases, Bostock v Clayton and Altitude Express v Zarda, while the third, Harris Funeral Homes v EEOC, asks whether Title VII's bar also covers discrimination against transgender people.

In its landmark ruling in Obergefell v Hodges (2015), the court recognized a right to gay marriage, but that was a different supreme court. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who long served as the swing vote in a closely divided court, wrote the majority opinion in Obergefell. Kennedy has since been replaced by Brett Kavanaugh, and whatever else one might think of the court's junior-most justice, he will undeniably move the court firmly to the right. Indeed, this supreme court is the most conservative that the US has seen since the early years of FDR's presidency, when a hidebound supreme court aggressively struck down New Deal laws designed to alleviate the economic suffering of millions.

That same hidebound spirit was put richly on display yesterday when Justice Samuel Alito observed during arguments that were the court to extend Title VII protections to gay people, it would be "acting exactly like a legislature". Such a move, Alito fretted, would "change the meaning of what Congress understood sex to be". The argument is less wrong than it is tiresome. Scanning the intent of a Congress is a notoriously unreliable guide to statutory interpretation and one that conservatives generally abjure. Should Congress object to the court's extending the Civil Right Act's protections to LGBTQ people, it could always act to curtail the court's reading.

More to the point, Alito's observation is less an explanation than a rhetorical ploy. Every law student solemnly learns that interpreting the law is the province of the courts while making law is the precinct of legislature - only then to learn that the distinction is utterly unstable and largely incoherent. Conservative jurists call results they like - for example, that the second amendment protects a personal right to gun ownership - interpretations. Results they don't like - extending basic workplace rights to gay and transgender persons - are acts of lawmaking, a usurpation of proper judicial function.

Granted: it is not a foregone conclusion that the court's conservative bloc will refuse to extend the protections of the Civil Rights Act to LGBTQ people. Hopeful was Justice Neil Gorsuch's observation that sex, the operative term in Title VII, appeared to be a "contributing cause" in the firing of transgender petitioners. Less encouraging was his observation that an extension of protections might cause "massive social upheaval" - with the understanding that triggering such upheaval should be left to Congress and not the court.

So safe money counts five votes refusing to extend workplace protections to millions of LGBTQ people. That Gorsuch appears to be the swing vote here is all the more regrettable. Justice Gorsuch, of course, is not to blame for his position on the court. That falls to Mitch McConnell, who cynically stole a seat that rightfully belonged to Merrick Garland. McConnell's constitutional coup d'état will leave all the decisions of this five-person bloc smacking of illegitimacy. Particularly those with Gorsuch's stamp.


More Related News

Supreme Court refuses to block lower court order demanding action against coronavirus at Ohio prison
Supreme Court refuses to block lower court order demanding action against coronavirus at Ohio prison

The high court's action represented its most significant intervention to date related to the deadly impact of COVID-19 inside federal prisons.

In blow to DOJ, Supreme Court won
In blow to DOJ, Supreme Court won't block order to move prisoners over coronavirus concerns
  • US
  • 2020-05-26 19:00:00Z

The Bureau of Prisons said more than 160 inmates and seven staff members at the Ohio prison have tested positive for COVID-19.

Big Oil loses appeal, climate suits go to California courts
Big Oil loses appeal, climate suits go to California courts

Big Oil lost a pair of court battles Tuesday that could lead to trials in lawsuits by California cities and counties seeking damages for the impact of climate change. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected arguments by energy companies and ruled state courts are the proper forum for lawsuits alleging producers promoted petroleum as environmentally responsible when they knew it was contributing to drought, wildfires, and sea level rise associated with global warming. The lawsuits claim Chevron, Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips, BP, Royal Dutch Shell and other companies created a public nuisance and should pay for damage from climate change and help build sea walls and other...

U.S. Supreme Court declines to block at-risk prisoner transfer plan
U.S. Supreme Court declines to block at-risk prisoner transfer plan
  • US
  • 2020-05-26 17:27:47Z

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to block a judge's ruling that requires the U.S. government to evaluate moving up to 837 potentially at-risk prisoners out of a federal prison in Ohio due to concerns about the health risks of the coronavirus. The justices rejected a request by President Donald Trump's administration to put the lower court ruling on hold. The brief order noted that three of the nine-member court's conservatives - Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch - would have granted the administration's request.

Trump's Fifth Simple Trick for Stealing the Election Will Give You Nightmares-and Tear America Apart

So many shocking things have become normal now under this administration that it's kind of hard to imagine what would genuinely jolt the nation at this point. And with regard to November's election, the shocking-but-normal reality is that we know Donald Trump will cheat. There was a terrifying piece in the Times on Sunday laying out all the different moves he could pull to steal the election that his opponents are war-gaming to prepare for and counter. One little nugget from it: Trump could issue orders that impact cities in battleground states like "declaring a state of emergency, deploying the National Guard or forbidding gatherings of more than 10 people." Everyone knows he'll cheat....

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

Cancel reply


Top News: Latin America