Arab Press

بالشعب و للشعب
Friday, Aug 22, 2025

Neil Gorsuch Might Be the Supreme Court’s LGBTQ Rights Savior. But He May Not.

A sharply divided Supreme Court considered whether federal law protects LGBTQ people from being fired, with Justice Neil Gorsuch emerging as the possible route to equality victory.

The most important LGBTQ equality cases since same-sex marriage may be a toss-up. And the swing vote-surprisingly, based on today’s oral arguments-may be Justice Neil Gorsuch.

At issue in today’s three cases is whether the federal anti-discrimination law, known as Title VII, protects gay and trans workers from being fired because of who they are. That law does not mention sexual orientation or gender identity. But, LGBTQ advocates argue, when someone is fired for being LGBTQ, that is covered under Title VII’s ban on discrimination “because of sex.”

After all, they argued today, if a man is fired from his job for disclosing that he is attracted to other men-as happened to Gerald Bostock, one of the plaintiffs today-that is sex discrimination: had Gerald Bostock been a woman, he wouldn’t have been fired.

Likewise, when Aimee Stephens transitioned from male to female, her employer (a funeral home) fired her. She attended the Supreme Court on Tuesday, accompanied by her attorneys and actress and advocate Laverne Cox.

Once again, Stephens' advocates argued, this is discrimination “because of sex”: had Stephens been biologically female (or, more precisely, assigned the sex of female at birth), she would not have been fired for coming to work dressed as the woman she is.

That the cases are at the Supreme Court might surprise many. The vast majority of Americans-72 percent, according to UCLA’s Williams Institute—say that transgender people should be protected from employment discrimination. The number is even higher for LGB people.

In fact, a majority of Americans think that it’s already illegal to fire someone for being gay or trans, and are surprised to hear that it isn’t.

At oral arguments today at the Supreme Court, the ideologically divided court-five conservatives, four liberals-mostly hewed to form.

First, the Court’s four liberals all seemed sympathetic to the plaintiffs. Justice Elena Kagan said that Title VII “pretty firmly” backs their claims that they’d been discriminated against “because of sex.” She said the test was “extremely simple”: Would the same thing have happened to you if you were a different sex? If not, that’s sex discrimination.

And Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg noted that Title VII has been expanded before. Sexual harassment was also not explicitly included in the law, yet cases involving harassment are now routinely covered by it.

On the other hand, Chief Justice John Roberts expressed concern that the Court was being asked to take the role of Congress, and indeed override Congress’s express refusal to protect gay and trans workers. (The Equality Act, which would do so, passed the House earlier this year but has not been brought up for a vote in the Senate.)

This is certainly correct. Even if LGBTQ advocates’ reading of Title VII makes sense on paper, it clearly defies both Congress’ understanding of the law and its refusal to expand it.

Justice Samuel Alito was even more hostile. “You’re trying to change the meaning of what Congress understood sex to be,” Justice Alito told the plaintiffs’ attorney.

And yet, to the surprise of many, Justice Gorsuch agreed that when a person is fired because of their sexual orientation, their sex is at least a “contributing cause.” That would suggest that Gorsuch is at least sympathetic to the plaintiffs’ arguments.

How to understand this conflict?

In a sense, the Court’s conservatives are being asked to choose between two different conservative commitments: to textualism on the one hand, and to originalism on the other. Usually the two go hand in hand-but not always, and not in this case.

Textually speaking, the words “because of sex” may well apply to what happened to Bostock, Stephens, and the third plaintiff, Donald Zarda. If all that the Court is doing is reading the words on the page-“interpreting laws as written,” as conservatives like to say-then the plaintiffs might well win.

But not in terms of originalism. No one is arguing that that was the intention of Congress in 1964, when Title VII was passed. On the contrary, in 1964, stigma against gay people was universal, and the word “transgender” didn’t even exist. Justice Alito is certainly correct that, in 1964, Congress didn’t mean to include gay or trans people in the law.

Does all this mean that Justice Gorsuch will be the swing vote for LGBTQ equality?

Don’t bet on it.

First, it’s a fool’s errand to predict how a justice will vote based on the questions they ask at oral argument. Often, justices will make arguments they don’t believe, simply to test those arguments and see if they hold up. While, in this case, it’s easy to interpret Justice Alito’s hostility and Justice Kagan’s “extremely simple,” Justice Gorsuch’s equivocation could really go either way.

Second, Justice Gorsuch simply noted the textualist point: on the page, the statute favors the plaintiffs. He didn’t say that textualist point overrules Congress’s intent in 1964, or its refusal to protect gay and trans people since. And he added that ruling for plaintiffs could cause “massive social upheaval.”

Most importantly, Justice Gorsuch has just published a book, called A Republic, If You Can Keep It, touting the virtues of originalism and respect for the will of Congress. The book is practically a manifesto for the “original intent” method of interpreting laws-which would doom the plaintiffs’ cases.

So, no, it’s unlikely that Justice Gorsuch will be the new Justice Antony Kennedy. Nor are LGBTQ advocates looking to Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was mostly silent during the oral arguments, or Justice Clarence Thomas, who was home with the flu.

Ultimately, when these cases are decided-anywhere from three to eight months from now, based on the Court's calendar-they will likely be misunderstood, which is exactly what the Right wants.

In reality, the cases are about what a law means-not what it should mean, not what some other law should mean, but what Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 says about LGBTQ people.

But social conservatives want the cases to ask a broader question: “Should it be legal to fire gay and trans people?” They want this to be a referendum on the legality and morality of homophobia. And if they win, as now seems likely, that’s exactly how they will spin it.

There’s reason to believe that strategy will backfire, however.

The Supreme Court may, of course, rule in favor of the three fired LGBTQ employees. But even if they lose these cases, the truth will become better known; and those standing in the way of the Equality Act-including Mitch McConnell-will be held accountable.

Today appears unlikely to bring justice to Aimee Stephens, Gerald Bostock, and Donald Zarda. But another day will.

Newsletter

Related Articles

Arab Press
0:00
0:00
Close
Dogfights in the Skies: Airbus on Track to Overtake Boeing and Claim Aviation Supremacy
Tim Cook Promises an AI Revolution at Apple: "One of the Most Significant Technologies of Our Generation"
Are AI Data Centres the Infrastructure of the Future or the Next Crisis?
Miles Worth Billions: How Airlines Generate Huge Profits
Zelenskyy Returns to White House Flanked by European Allies as Trump Pressures Land-Swap Deal with Putin
Beijing is moving into gold and other assets, diversifying away from the dollar
Trump Backs Putin’s Land-for-Peace Proposal Amid Kyiv’s Rejection
Zelenskyy to Visit Washington after Trump–Putin Summit Yields No Agreement
Iranian Protection Offers Chinese Vehicle Shipments a Cost Advantage over Japanese and Korean Makers
United States Sells Luxury Yacht Amadea, Valued at Approximately $325 Million, in First Sale of a Seized Russian Yacht Since the Invasion of Ukraine
Saudi Arabia accelerates renewables to curb domestic oil use
Cristiano Ronaldo and Georgina Rodríguez announce engagement
Asia-Pacific dominates world’s busiest flight routes, with South Korea’s Jeju–Seoul corridor leading global rankings
Private Welsh island with 19th-century fort listed for sale at over £3 million
Sam Altman challenges Elon Musk with plans for Neuralink rival
Australia to Recognize the State of Palestine at UN Assembly
The Collapse of the Programmer Dream: AI Experts Now the Real High-Earners
Armenia and Azerbaijan to Sign US-Brokered Framework Agreement for Nakhchivan Corridor
British Labour Government Utilizes Counter-Terrorism Tools for Social Media Monitoring Against Legitimate Critics
WhatsApp Deletes 6.8 Million Scam Accounts Amid Rising Global Fraud
Texas Residents Face Water Restrictions While AI Data Centers Consume Millions of Gallons
India Rejects U.S. Tariff Threat, Defends Russian Oil Purchases
United States Establishes Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and Digital Asset Stockpile
Thousands of Private ChatGPT Conversations Accidentally Indexed by Google
China Tightens Mineral Controls, Curtailing Critical Inputs for Western Defence Contractors
JPMorgan and Coinbase Unveil Partnership to Let Chase Cardholders Buy Crypto Directly
British Tourist Dies Following Hair Transplant in Turkey, Police Investigate
WhatsApp Users Targeted in New Scam Involving Account Takeovers
Trump Deploys Nuclear Submarines After Threats from Former Russian President Medvedev
Germany’s Economic Breakdown and the Return of Militarization: From Industrial Collapse to a New Offensive Strategy
Germany Enters Fiscal Crisis as Cabinet Approves €174 Billion in New Debt
IMF Upgrades Global Growth Forecast as Weaker Dollar Supports Outlook
Politics is a good business: Barack Obama’s Reported Net Worth Growth, 1990–2025
UN's Top Court Declares Environmental Protection a Legal Obligation Under International Law
"Crazy Thing": OpenAI's Sam Altman Warns Of AI Voice Fraud Crisis In Banking
Japanese Prime Minister Vows to Stay After Coalition Loses Upper House Majority
President Trump Diagnosed with Chronic Venous Insufficiency After Leg Swelling
Man Dies After Being Pulled Into MRI Machine Due to Metal Chain in New York Clinic
FIFA Pressured to Rethink World Cup Calendar Due to Climate Change
Iranian President Reportedly Injured During Israeli Strike on Secret Facility
Kurdistan Workers Party Takes Symbolic Step Towards Peace in Northern Iraq
BRICS Expands Membership with Indonesia and Ten New Partner Countries
Elon Musk Founds a Party Following a Poll on X: "You Wanted It – You Got It!"
AI Raises Alarms Over Long-Term Job Security
Russia Formally Recognizes Taliban Government in Afghanistan
Saudi Arabia Maintains Ties with Iran Despite Israel Conflict
Mediators Edge Closer to Israel-Hamas Ceasefire Agreement
Germany Seeks Taliban Deal to Deport Afghan Migrants
Emirates Airline Expands Market Share with New $20 Million Campaign
Robots Compete in Football Tournament in China Amid Injuries
×