A BLOCKBUSTER DAY, AN UNLIKELY ALLY, AND A POTENTIAL SEA CHANGE | SCOTUS Grapples With LGBTQ Rights In America
October 9, 2019
A BLOCKBUSTER DAY
|ICYMI, the Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday concerning whether federal law protects the LGBTQ community from workplace discrimination. The justices seemed mostly divided during the two arguments. It was the first time the high court had to address LGBTQ rights since JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY stepped down. And though the typical ideological split seemed largely intact, there were signs that JUSTICE NEIL GORSUCH could defect from his conservative colleagues. The question was, he said, “really close, really close.”
A CHANGE OF TUNE
|“For nearly a quarter century, the US Supreme Court has set down constitutional protections for gay men and lesbians, a trend that reached a dramatic high point in its 2015 decision declaring a right to same-sex marriage.” But all that could change with justices’ rulings on Monday’s cases. Joan Biskupic with CNN writes, “The tenor of the justices’ questions — preoccupied at times with shared bathrooms and showers — suggested a break with the steady pattern of advancing gay rights. It’s the nature of this new dispute and, more importantly, a new Supreme Court.”
AN UNLIKELY ALLY
|Mark Joseph Stern with Slate says only one conservative justice seemed to be taking LGBTQ discrimination seriously. “The fate of LGBTQ equality in the American workplace may lie in JUSTICE NEIL GORSUCH’S hands,” he writes. “Gorsuch was the only conservative justice who seemed genuinely open to the possibility that federal law shields LGBTQ employees from discrimination. He was the only conservative justice who engaged in good faith with the argument that discrimination against gay, bisexual, and transgender workers always takes sex into account. Yet Gorsuch appeared to be concerned about the potential ‘massive social upheaval’ of a ruling that recognizes federal protections for LGBTQ workers. The outcome of Tuesday’s cases may depend upon his ability to set aside political concerns and interpret the law as written.”
A POTENTIAL SEA CHANGE
|Eugene Scott with The Washington Post spoke with Alphonso David, president of the Human Rights Campaign, about yesterday’s cases. David explained the importance of the outcome of yesterday’s hearings by noting, “The implications for the LGBTQ community are quite significant because we have been relying on case law for the past 20 years. Cases that have been issued by a variety of courts for the past 20 years. Courts have concluded that federal civil rights laws do protect LGBTQ people from discrimination. So if the court issues a ruling that is inconsistent with those decisions, it could be a dramatic sea change for LGBT people across the country.”
A BRIEF HISTORY
|Tara Law for TIME reminds us of nine landmark Supreme Court cases that shaped LGBTQ rights in America. She reports, “Over the last half a century, the court first denied and then affirmed that LGBTQ people have the right to consensual sex, and then the right to marry whom they choose.”
SCOTUS VIEWS
Harris v. EEOC And The Women's Rights Legacy Of Ruth Bader Ginsburg
The Hill“WoLF is in this fight this because we care about the rights, privacy and safety of women and girls, as does Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. We hope that she will side with us. Justice Ginsburg long has argued that women deserve justice under the law, on the basis of sex. She knows what a woman is, and it would be difficult to overstate her commitment to advancing the rights of women.”
The Supreme Court Is Hearing The Perfect Transgender Employment Rights Case
Bloomberg Law“Stephens should win her case for the very simple reason that she was unquestionably fired because of her sex. Indeed, her case is about as strong as one can imagine. She doesn’t need to have a comparator, but if she did, she has the perfect comparator: herself while she was presenting as Andrew Stephens and was an employee in good standing. Normally a claim by a woman who claims she was fired while a similarly situated man wasn’t, would invite contrasts in their circumstances, positions, qualifications, etc. There is no more perfect comparator than the same person presenting as a man and succeeding then later announcing she is in fact a woman and suddenly being terminated.”
OTHER NEWS
Supreme Court, Set To Rule On LGBTQ Rights At Work, Addressed Gender Discrimination 30 Years Ago
The Washington Post“Although she was considered one of her accounting firm’s top management consultants, much of the company’s leadership was not particularly fond of Ann Hopkins in 1982. The overwhelmingly male partners at accounting firm Price Waterhouse — now PwC — had given feedback that caused the company not to make her a partner that year. Their criticisms were stinging: ‘Needs a course in charm school.’ ‘Overly aggressive.’ ‘Matured from a tough-talking, somewhat masculine, hard-nosed manager to an authoritative, formidable, but much more appealing lady partner candidate.’ When Hopkins was told the next year that she would never make partner at the firm, she filed a lawsuit that rose to the Supreme Court and set a precedent about workplace sex discrimination.”
Alaska Supreme Court To Hear Youths’ Climate Change Lawsuit
The Associated Press“The Alaska Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday in a lawsuit that claims state policy on fossil fuels is harming the constitutional right of young Alaskans to a safe climate. Sixteen Alaska youths in 2017 sued the state, claiming that human-caused greenhouse gas emission leading to climate change is creating long-term, dangerous health effects.”