Misplaced Pages

#968031

74-548: Bostock v. Clayton County , 590 U.S. 644 (2020), is a landmark United States Supreme Court civil rights decision in which the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination because of sexuality or gender identity. The plaintiff, Gerald Bostock, was fired from his county job after he expressed interest in a gay softball league at work. The lower courts followed

148-440: A "watershed". Ken Mehlman took the decision as evidence that conservatism is not inconsistent with support for LGBT rights. Legal scholars saw the ruling as having an impact beyond employment, extending to areas such as education, health care, housing and financial credit. Attorney Paul Smith , who argued Lawrence v. Texas (2003), said, "[a]ny law, and I think there are dozens, that says you can't discriminate because of sex

222-475: A binding precedent, but all may be cited as persuasive, or their reasoning may be adopted in an argument. Apart from the rules of procedure for precedent, the weight given to any reported judgment may depend on the reputation of both the reporter and the judges. The legal systems of the Nordic countries are sometimes included among the civil law systems, but as a separate branch, and sometimes counted as separate from

296-500: A certain conduct (e.g., attraction to women) in employees of one sex but not in employees of the other sex. The ruling has been hailed as one of the most important legal decisions regarding LGBT rights in the United States , along with Lawrence v. Texas (2003) and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). Many legal analysts claimed that the case defined Gorsuch as a textualist in statutory interpretation . The Civil Rights Act of 1964

370-653: A county employee". Georgia had no law protecting LGBT people from employment discrimination at the time. Bostock believed that the county used the claim of misspent funds as a pretext for firing him for being gay, and sought legal recourse for workplace discrimination in 2016 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia . The county sought to dismiss the claim of prohibited discrimination—the District Court agreed to dismiss, on

444-430: A different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids. Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result. But the limits of the drafters' imagination supply no reason to ignore the law's demands. Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit. In his opinion, Gorsuch wrote, "it

518-449: A federal agency based on an office Kennedy had established with Executive Order 10925 , to help oversee any reported employment discrimination and file lawsuits against entities that the EEOC believes have discriminated in the employment context. In addition, the EEOC may make its own determination on cases rather than taking these to court. These decisions do not carry the weight of case law, but

592-414: A higher court. An appellate court may also decide on an entirely new and different analysis from that of junior courts, and may or may not be bound by its own previous decisions, or in any case, may distinguish them on the facts. Where there are several members of a court deciding a case, there may be one or more judgments given (or reported). Only the reason for the decision of the majority can constitute

666-552: A much smaller role in developing case law in common law than professors in civil law. Because court decisions in civil law traditions are historically brief and not formally amenable to establishing precedent, much of the exposition of the law in civil law traditions is done by academics rather than by judges; this is called doctrine and may be published in treatises or in journals such as Recueil Dalloz in France. Historically, common law courts relied little on legal scholarship; thus, at

740-665: A new precedent of higher authority. This may happen several times as the case works its way through successive appeals. Lord Denning , first of the High Court of Justice , later of the Court of Appeal , provided a famous example of this evolutionary process in his development of the concept of estoppel starting in the High Trees case: Central London Property Trust Ltd v. High Trees House Ltd [1947] K.B. 130. The different roles of case law in civil and common law traditions create differences in

814-677: A number of other states, had filed an amicus brief on behalf of the employers in Bostock ), observed that all three opinions in Bostock adopted a textualist approach. Echoing a comment made by Justice Elena Kagan in memorializing Scalia, Skrmetti argued that Bostock shows "we really are all textualists now". He characterized Gorsuch's majority opinion in Bostock as "glorifying textualism in its narrowest literalist conception". Gorsuch's majority opinion, Skrmetti argues, means that this "narrow" form of textualism—which, on Skrmetti's view, does not look to legislative history or other potential sources of

SECTION 10

#1733085863969

888-516: A related case, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission , ( Harris Funeral Homes ), in which the Sixth Circuit found Title VII also covered transgender employment discrimination, set the stage for the Supreme Court's decision in Bostock . Bostock petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari on the question of whether sexual orientation

962-456: A similar question of Title VII discrimination relating to transgender persons. On June 15, 2020, the Court ruled in a 6–3 decision covering all three cases that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is necessarily also discrimination "because of sex" as prohibited by Title VII. According to Justice Neil Gorsuch 's majority opinion, that is so because employers discriminating against gay or transgender employees accept

1036-569: A state-level board that performs functions equivalent to the EEOC, and which will work with the EEOC to unify employment discrimination regulations. Numerous local governments passed similar LGBT employment discrimination statutes as well. Since 1994, members of the Democratic Party in the U.S. Congress have introduced some form of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in nearly every two-year term, which would have amended

1110-461: A textualist flag, but what it actually represents is a theory of statutory interpretation that Justice Scalia excoriated—the theory that courts should 'update' old statutes so that they better reflect the current values of society." In a Slate article, Mark Joseph Stern wrote that Gorsuch's argument "rests on textualism" and described it as "remarkably dismissive" of Alito's dissenting opinion. Stern agreed with Gorsuch, writing, "Alito does not want

1184-521: Is covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The Supreme Court granted the petition in April 2019, and consolidated the case with Altitude Express . Between these cases, as well as prior Circuit court decisions, there had been a split of opinions on whether sexual orientation discrimination is covered by Title VII. The combined Bostock and Altitude Express cases drew numerous amicus curiae briefs. Over thirty-six briefs were filed in support of Bostock and

1258-584: Is different from Wikidata Use mdy dates from September 2023 Articles containing potentially dated statements from August 2024 All articles containing potentially dated statements Case law These judicial interpretations are distinguished from statutory law , which are codes enacted by legislative bodies , and regulatory law , which are established by executive agencies based on statutes. In some jurisdictions, case law can be applied to ongoing adjudication ; for example, criminal proceedings or family law. In common law countries (including

1332-532: Is going to have a reckoning with this ruling"; indeed, Alito's dissent in Bostock notes that "[o]ver 100 federal statutes prohibit discrimination because of sex". American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Joshua Block said, "[a]ll of the Trump administration's actions ['curtailing protections for transgender Americans'] have been built around this assertion that Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act] and Title IX [of

1406-601: Is hard to recall. The Court tries to convince readers that it is merely enforcing the terms of the statute, but that is preposterous. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a separate dissent, arguing that the Court could not add sexual orientation or gender identity to Title VII due to the separation of powers , leaving this responsibility to Congress. He concluded by acknowledging that Millions of gay and lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to achieve equal treatment in fact and law ... They have advanced powerful policy arguments and can take pride in today's result. Under

1480-456: Is irrelevant what an employer might call its discriminatory practice, how others might label it, or what else might motivate it." He referenced Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp. , in which a company refused to hire women with young children; and City of L.A. Dep't of Water & Power v. Manhart , in which an employer required women to make larger pension fund contributions than did men, on

1554-469: Is still work left to be done. In many aspects of the public square, LGBT people still lack non-discrimination protections, which is why it is crucial that Congress pass the Equality Act to address the significant gaps in federal civil rights laws and improve protections for everyone". Torie Osborn stated that the decision in Bostock represented a more significant advance than same-sex marriage, calling it

SECTION 20

#1733085863969

1628-592: The Education Amendments of 1972 ] provide no protections to LGBTQ people ... [i]t's an Achilles' heel that's been built into every single thing they've done." Some Christian conservatives, including Russell D. Moore and Franklin Graham , expressed concern that the decision would impact religious freedoms and affect faith-based employment, but Gorsuch's opinion said that the scope of how this decision intersects with past precedent for religious freedom would likely be

1702-590: The Eleventh Circuit 's past precedent that Title VII did not cover employment discrimination based on sexual orientation . The case was consolidated with Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda , a similar case of apparent discrimination due to sexual orientation from the Second Circuit , but which had added to a circuit split . Oral arguments were heard on October 8, 2019, alongside R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ,

1776-702: The Fifth Circuit in 1976. In upholding the ruling, the Eleventh Circuit pointed to their ruling in Evans that dismissed the Supreme Court's precedent against sex discrimination set by Price Waterhouse and Oncale . The Eleventh Circuit's ruling in Evans furthered a circuit split , as it conflicted with that of the Seventh Circuit in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana (2017) in which, by an 8–3 decision,

1850-555: The High Court and the Court of Appeals are each bound by their own previous decisions, however, since 1966 the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom can deviate from its earlier decisions, although in practice it rarely does. A notable example of when the court has overturned its precedent is the case of R v Jogee , where the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ruled that it and the other courts of England and Wales had misapplied

1924-485: The United Kingdom , United States , Canada , Australia , New Zealand , South Africa , Singapore , Ireland , India , Pakistan , Bangladeshi , Sri Lanka , Nepal , Bhutan , Israel and Hong Kong ), it is used for judicial decisions of selected appellate courts , courts of first instance , agency tribunals, and other bodies discharging adjudicatory functions. In the common law tradition, courts decide

1998-569: The Circuit found that discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation violated Title VII. The Second Circuit came to the same conclusion in Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc. (2018) ( Altitude Express ) by a 10–3 vote en banc . Thus the Eleventh Circuit, on the one hand, and the Second and Seventh Circuits, on the other, were divided on the question of the interpretation of Title VII. These cases and

2072-485: The Civil Rights Act to include both sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes under Title VII at the federal level and thus applying across the entire country. Passage of these bills has generally failed because lack of support among Republicans, especially in the House of Representatives. More recently, the Equality Act , expanding the non-discrimination protections to include housing, education, and other areas,

2146-570: The Constitution's separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congress's role, not this Court's, to amend Title VII. The Supreme Court ruling was seen as a major victory by proponents of LGBT rights. Sarah Kate Ellis , the CEO of GLAAD , stated that the "Court's historic decision affirms what shouldn't have even been a debate: LGBT Americans should be able to work without fear of losing jobs because of who they are". The Human Rights Campaign praised

2220-520: The Court in this case on June 15, 2020. In a 6–3 decision, the Court held that Title VII protections pursuant to § 2000e-2(a)(1) did extend to cover sexual orientation and gender identity. The decision then involved the statutory interpretation of Title VII (specifically the original meaning of "sex"), not constitutional law as in other recent landmark cases involving the rights of LGBT individuals such as Obergefell v. Hodges . The Court further held that Title VII protections against sex discrimination in

2294-411: The Court's updating of Title VII. But the question in these cases is not whether discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity should be outlawed. The question is whether Congress did that in 1964. It indisputably did not." Alito further stated that "even if discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity could be squeezed into some arcane understanding of sex discrimination,

Bostock v. Clayton County - Misplaced Pages Continue

2368-665: The District Court. Some legal scholars have expressed disappointment that the Supreme Court did not define the terms "transgender" or "gay" in its ruling, leaving doubt about who is covered by them. In the Connecticut Law Review , Mercer University law professor Pamela Wilkins wrote that the Court's decision regarding transgender people uses only examples in which someone identified as male or female and "does not address whether Title VII protects transgender non-binary individuals who identify as something other than exclusively male and female." Legal scholars have also debated whether

2442-579: The EEOC filed its first pair of test cases in federal court arguing that sexual orientation is protected by Title VII. Gerald Bostock was an employee of Clayton County , within the Atlanta metropolitan area, as an official for its juvenile court system since 2003, with good performance records through the years. In early 2013, he joined a gay softball league and promoted it at work for volunteerism. In April 2013, Clayton County conducted an audit of funds controlled by Bostock and fired him for "conduct unbecoming

2516-6243: The Roberts Court 2019 term opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States External links [ edit ] Supreme Court of the United States (www.supremecourt.gov) United States Supreme Court cases in volume 590 (Justia) 2019 Term Opinions of the Court v t e ←  Volume 589 Volume 591  → United States Supreme Court cases by volume 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_590&oldid=1175145892 " Categories : Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume Lists of 2019 term United States Supreme Court opinions Hidden categories: Articles with short description Short description

2590-409: The Supreme Court does consider the weight of the EEOC opinions as the EEOC "constitute[s] a body of experience and informed judgment to which courts and litigants may properly resort for guidance". The nature of protected classes under § 2000e-2(a)(1) have been refined through case law over the years. Three key Supreme Court cases prior to Bostock had considered the aspect of "sex" in the context of

2664-461: The Supreme Court would make a consequential decision in this case because of the sensitivity of the issue and the Constitutional implications. In an article before oral arguments, Blumstein stated that the decision would determine whether the Supreme Court would remain solely as the "expositor of the law" or become the policymakers alongside Congress. Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the opinion of

2738-2334: The U.S. Supreme Court's United States Reports have been published through volume 579. Newer cases from subsequent future volumes do not yet have official page numbers and typically use three underscores in place of the page number; e.g., Snyder v. United States , 603 U.S. ___ (2024). Case name Docket no. Date decided Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian 17–1498 April 20, 2020 Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP 18–916 April 20, 2020 Ramos v. Louisiana 18–5924 April 20, 2020 County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund 18–260 April 23, 2020 Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc. 18–1233 April 23, 2020 Barton v. Barr 18–725 April 23, 2020 Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. 18–1150 April 27, 2020 Maine Community Health Options v. United States 18–1023 April 27, 2020 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York 18–280 April 27, 2020 United States v. Sineneng-Smith 19–67 May 7, 2020 Kelly v. United States 18–1059 May 7, 2020 Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Group, Inc. 18–1086 May 14, 2020 Opati v. Republic of Sudan 17–1268 May 18, 2020 GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC 18–1048 June 1, 2020 Financial Oversight and Management Bd. for Puerto Rico v. Aurelius Investment, LLC 18–1334 June 1, 2020 Banister v. Davis 18–6943 June 1, 2020 Thole v. U. S. Bank N. A. 17–1712 June 1, 2020 Nasrallah v. Barr 18–1432 June 1, 2020 Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez 18–8369 June 8, 2020 United States Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Assn. 18–1584 June 15, 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County 17–1618 June 15, 2020 Andrus v. Texas 18–9674 June 15, 2020 See also [ edit ] List of United States Supreme Court cases by

2812-497: The basis of gender identity is a form of sex stereotyping, and thus prohibited in employment as a form of discrimination on the basis of sex under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In 2015, the EEOC ruled in Baldwin v. Foxx that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is also prohibited in employment under Title VII, on the exact same basis as in Macy . The following year,

2886-570: The basis of the precedent established in the 2017 case Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital decided by the Eleventh Circuit (of which the District is part), which held that the Civil Rights Act's Title VII does not include protection against discrimination towards sexual orientation. Bostock appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, where the three-judge panel affirmed the District Court's ruling in 2018. The Eleventh Circuit relied on two prior cases: its previous ruling in Evans , and Blum v. Gulf Oil Corp. from

2960-542: The benefit of adversarial testing about the meaning of their terms, and we do not prejudge any such question today." Justice Samuel Alito wrote a dissent, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas . In his dissent, Alito asserted that at the time of the crafting of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 the concepts of sexual orientation and transgender identity would have been unknown, and thus Congress's language should not be implied to cover these facets. Alito wrote, "Many will applaud today's decision because they agree on policy grounds with

3034-421: The case is not appealed , the decision will stand. A lower court may not rule against a binding precedent, even if it feels that it is unjust; it may only express the hope that a higher court or the legislature will reform the rule in question. If the court believes that developments or trends in legal reasoning render the precedent unhelpful, and wishes to evade it and help the law evolve, it may either hold that

Bostock v. Clayton County - Misplaced Pages Continue

3108-526: The civil law tradition. In Sweden , for instance, case law arguably plays a more important role than in some of the Continental codified law systems. The two highest courts, the Supreme Court ( Högsta domstolen ) and the Supreme Administrative Court ( Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen ), have the right to set precedent which is in practice (however not formally) binding on all future application of

3182-443: The context in which Title VII was enacted would tell us that this is not what the statute's terms were understood to mean at that time." Alito was critical of the majority decision: There is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation. The document that the Court releases is in the form of a judicial opinion interpreting a statute, but that is deceptive ... A more brazen abuse of our authority to interpret statutes

3256-419: The court to stretch Title VII beyond its application—as expected by Congress in 1964—and that approach is not textualism", adding that Alito's opinion "elevates the alleged mental processes of long-dead lawmakers over the ordinary meaning of words". Michael D. Shear , a White House correspondent for The New York Times , wrote, "Justice Gorsuch employed a fundamentally conservative principle—a literal reading of

3330-655: The current case are called obiter dicta , which constitute persuasive authority but are not technically binding. By contrast, decisions in civil law jurisdictions are generally shorter, referring only to statutes . The reason for this difference is that these civil law jurisdictions adhere to a tradition that the reader should be able to deduce the logic from the decision and the statutes. Some pluralist systems, such as Scots law in Scotland and types of civil law jurisdictions in Quebec and Louisiana , do not precisely fit into

3404-481: The decision, with the HRC President, Alphonso David , stating: "This is a landmark victory for LGBT equality. No one should be denied a job or fired simply because of who they are or whom they love. For the past two decades, federal courts have determined that discrimination on the basis of LGBT status is unlawful discrimination under federal law. Today's historic ruling by the Supreme Court affirms that view, but there

3478-471: The dual common-civil law system classifications. These types of systems may have been heavily influenced by the Anglo-American common law tradition; however, their substantive law is firmly rooted in the civil law tradition. Because of their position between the two main systems of law, these types of legal systems are sometimes referred to as mixed systems of law. Law professors traditionally have played

3552-489: The employment context apply to discrimination against particular individuals on the basis of sex, as opposed to discrimination against groups. Thus, Title VII provides a remedy to individuals who experience discrimination on the basis of sex even if an employer's policy on the whole does not involve discrimination. Gorsuch wrote: An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of

3626-493: The estate of Zarda, including one signed by over 200 major corporations such as Amazon , the Walt Disney Company , and Coca-Cola , that asserted that it would not be "unreasonably costly or burdensome" for them to accept sexual orientation as a protected class under Title VII. Over 25 briefs were filed to support Clayton County and Altitude Express; among them, the U.S. Department of Justice argued that sexual orientation

3700-472: The federal government interprets Title VII as protecting against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The Executive Order on Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation also required that federal agencies include discrimination on the basis of sexuality and gender if a federal anti-discrimination statute covers sex discrimination. There

3774-532: The hearings, police from the District of Columbia had discovered two suspicious packages near the Supreme Court building and temporarily cleared the plaza of arriving supporters to remove the packages. In oral arguments, the statutory claims centered on the discrimination "because of ... sex" language of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Andrée Sophia Blumstein, the Solicitor General of Tennessee, predicted that

SECTION 50

#1733085863969

3848-420: The judge believes the academic's restatement of the law is more compelling than can be found in case law. Thus common law systems are adopting one of the approaches long-held in civil law jurisdictions. Judges may refer to various types of persuasive authority to decide a case. Widely cited non-binding sources include legal encyclopedias such as Corpus Juris Secundum and Halsbury's Laws of England , or

3922-508: The law applicable to a case by interpreting statutes and applying precedents which record how and why prior cases have been decided. Unlike most civil law systems, common law systems follow the doctrine of stare decisis , by which most courts are bound by their own previous decisions in similar cases. According to stare decisis, all lower courts should make decisions consistent with the previous decisions of higher courts. For example, in England,

3996-431: The law for nearly 30 years. Generally speaking, higher courts do not have direct oversight over the lower courts of record , in that they cannot reach out on their initiative ( sua sponte ) at any time to overrule judgments of the lower courts. Normally, the burden rests with litigants to appeal rulings (including those in clear violation of established case law) to the higher courts. If a judge acts against precedent, and

4070-485: The law is Title VII , which covers equal employment opportunities. Its key provision, codified at 42 U.S.C.   § 2000e-2(a)(1) , states that it is illegal to discriminate in any hiring or employment practices based on an "individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin". To enforce this requirement, Title VII established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC),

4144-447: The law is applied in one district , province, division or appellate department . Usually, only an appeal accepted by the court of last resort will resolve such differences and, for many reasons, such appeals are often not granted. Any court may seek to distinguish the present case from that of a binding precedent, to reach a different conclusion. The validity of such a distinction may or may not be accepted on appeal of that judgment to

4218-580: The meaning of the statute—is now ascendant. But Skrmetti notes that where a statute is ambiguous, such tools might still be available to judges in interpreting statutes. List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 590 This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 590 of the United States Reports : Note: As of August 2024, final bound volumes for

4292-783: The opinion unworkable sophistry, comparing it to Dred Scott v. Sandford : "Historians may look back and judge Bostock the twenty-first-century analogue to Dred Scott , the Supreme Court decision that imposed the Southern slave regime on the entire country and contributed to the intolerable contradictions that led to the Civil War. Gorsuch's majority opinion leaves no wiggle room. It ties affirmations of homosexuality and transgenderism to our most basic conceptions of equality. And it does so by denying that there are any moral, legal, or even metaphysical differences between men and women." Jonathan Skrmetti, Chief Deputy Attorney General of Tennessee (which, with

4366-433: The oral hearings drew on using textual interpretation of the law. Alito's dissent fundamentally denied that Gorsuch's opinion employed textualism. He argued that the majority opinion went beyond the plain language of the law to claim that its intent in 1964 covered sexual orientation and gender identity as part of the meaning of "sex" in the statute. Alito called the majority's decision a "pirate ship", in that "It sails under

4440-421: The precedent is inconsistent with subsequent authority, or that it should be distinguished by some material difference between the facts of the cases; some jurisdictions allow for a judge to recommend that an appeal be carried out. If that judgment goes to appeal, the appellate court will have the opportunity to review both the precedent and the case under appeal, perhaps overruling the previous case law by setting

4514-632: The premise that women on average live longer than men do. Both cases violated Title VII, and Gorsuch wrote, "just as labels and additional intentions or motivations didn't make a difference in Manhart or Phillips , they cannot make a difference here." Gorsuch's decision also alluded to concerns that the judgment may set a sweeping precedent that would force gender equality on traditional practices. "They say sex-segregated bathrooms, locker rooms, and dress codes will prove unsustainable after our decision today but none of these other laws are before us; we have not had

SECTION 60

#1733085863969

4588-600: The published work of the Law Commission or the American Law Institute . Some bodies are given statutory powers to issue guidance with persuasive authority or similar statutory effect, such as the Highway Code . In federal or multi-jurisdictional law systems there may exist conflicts between the various lower appellate courts. Sometimes these differences may not be resolved, and it may be necessary to distinguish how

4662-492: The ruling, such as Missouri Senator Josh Hawley , who argued that the ruling was simply "policymaking". President Donald Trump neither praised nor criticized the ruling, and stated in response to the decision that "some people were surprised" but said that the court had "ruled and we live with their decision". He called the decision "very powerful". On January 20, 2021, President Joseph Biden issued Executive Order 13988 , which built on Bostock v. Clayton County by ensuring

4736-550: The statute: Until Bostock , whether the Civil Rights Act gave federal protection against employment discrimination to the class of LGBT people was in dispute. Individual states since 1973 acted on their own accord to extend employment discrimination protections to explicitly cover LGBT employees, and by 2020 before the Bostock decision, 21 states had included LGBT as a protected class against employment discrimination, while other states offered some but less extensive protections in their laws. States with such protections often have

4810-488: The subject of future cases at the Court. Archbishop José Horacio Gómez , president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (which had filed an amicus brief (friend of the court) against Bostock), called the ruling an "injustice" and said he was "deeply concerned that the U.S. Supreme Court has effectively redefined the legal meaning of 'sex' in our nation's civil rights law". Franklin Graham said it

4884-512: The term "gay" in Title VII includes bisexual people. Many politicians across the political spectrum praised the ruling. Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that the ruling "secures critical protections for LGBT Americans across the country". Republican Senator Rob Portman of Ohio stated that the ruling was "a big deal" and emphasized that people should not be fired simply because of their sexual orientation. Some politicians, however, were critical of

4958-418: The turn of the twentieth century, it was very rare to see an academic writer quoted in a legal decision (except perhaps for the academic writings of prominent judges such as Coke and Blackstone ). Today academic writers are often cited in legal argument and decisions as persuasive authority ; often, they are cited when judges are attempting to implement reasoning that other courts have not yet adopted, or when

5032-416: The way that courts render decisions. Common law courts generally explain in detail the legal rationale behind their decisions, with citations of both legislation and previous relevant judgments, and often interpret the wider legal principles. The necessary analysis (called ratio decidendi ), then constitutes a precedent binding on other courts; further analyses not strictly necessary to the determination of

5106-498: The words of a statute—to reach a decision that contrasts sharply with the conclusions of the other conservative justices on the court". Carrie Severino , the president of the conservative Judicial Crisis Network and a former law clerk of Justice Thomas, said, "Justice Scalia would be disappointed that his successor has bungled textualism so badly today, for the sake of appealing to college campuses and editorial boards". The religious journal First Things editor R. R. Reno called

5180-611: Was "a very sad day". Dan McLaughlin of the National Review postulated that Dixiecrat Howard W. Smith 's insertion of the word "sex" in Title ;VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had inadvertently protected sexual orientation and gender identity from employment discrimination. Gerald Bostock, the only surviving plaintiff from all three cases, stated that he was "proud to take part in a role to get us to this historic moment". The Supreme Court decision remanded his case to be reheard at

5254-438: Was introduced in 2015 and similarly introduced each term, failing to pass due to declining support for LGBT rights (and particularly transgender rights) among Republicans since 2013. The EEOC has used past case law and its evaluation of discrimination cases brought before it to establish that LGBT discrimination is unlawful under the context of the Civil Rights Act. In 2012, the EEOC ruled in Macy v. Holder that discrimination on

5328-495: Was not covered, but asserted, "Congress of course remains free to legislate in this area; and employers, including governmental employers, remain free to offer greater protections to their workers than Title VII requires." Oral arguments in the consolidated cases were heard on October 8, 2019, alongside the arguments in Harris Funeral Homes , the case related to Title VII protections for transgender individuals. Just prior to

5402-504: Was passed into law amid the civil rights movement . It had been proposed by President John F. Kennedy as a means to combat racial discrimination and racial segregation in the aftermath of the Birmingham campaign . After Kennedy's assassination in November 1963, his successor Lyndon B. Johnson advocated passage of the Civil Rights Act in the following year. Among several provisions in

5476-450: Was some surprise that Gorsuch, a conservative-leaning Trump appointee, wrote the majority opinion supporting LGBT employment rights. Some commentators claimed that his opinion was consistent with his textualism in statutory interpretation of the plain meaning of laws in general, while others asserted otherwise. Gorsuch wrote much on textualism in his book A Republic, If You Can Keep It , published in mid-2019, and some of his questioning at

#968031