Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit.” “When the express terms of a statute give us one answer and extratextual considerations suggest another, it’s no contest.
“But the limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands,” he continued. Likely, they weren’t thinking about many of the Act’s consequences that have become apparent over the years, including its prohibition against discrimination on the basis of motherhood or its ban on the sexual harassment of male employees,” Gorsuch wrote. “Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result. Yet, the high court’s edict also seemed far less earth shaking than the 2015 ruling, perhaps due to ongoing racial unrest and perhaps because polls show an increasingly broad consensus in support of LGBT rights.Įxplaining the ruling, Gorsuch said Congress may not have intended to ban discrimination against gays, lesbians and transgender individuals, but that the logic of their protection by the statute was inescapable.
Trump asked about Supreme Court LGBT discrimination ruling (078102)While the cases ruled on Monday garnered less attention than the showdown five years ago that led to the court’s landmark decision finding a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, the latest ruling could be even more impactful, providing millions of LGBT Americans with new workplace rights and ushering in similar legal guarantees of equal treatment in private businesses, schools and elsewhere. Very powerful, very powerful decision, actually.” We live with the decision of the Supreme Court. “Some people were surprised, but they’ve ruled and we live with their decision. “I’ve read the decision,” the president said of the various opinions, which ran to 119 pages in all. A top Trump aide quickly criticized the ruling, but when the president himself was asked about it he offered a mild response and passed up a chance to try to make political hay out of the court’s decree. Some Trump allies immediately denounced Gorsuch’s opinion as a betrayal from the Trump appointee. The decision was a rout for social conservatives and a defeat for President Donald Trump’s administration, which had urged the justices to take a narrow view of the half-century-old law.
Writing for the court’s majority, the conservative Gorsuch embraced arguments that seemed radical to many liberals just a few years ago: that the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s prohibition on sex discrimination in employment also effectively banned bias based on sexual orientation or gender identity, even though few if any members of Congress thought they were doing that at the time. Two of the court’s Republican appointees, Neil Gorsuch and John Roberts, joined the court’s Democratic appointees to deliver the surprising 6-3 victory to those arguing for anti-discrimination protections LGBT rights advocates triumphed at the Supreme Court Monday, winning a sweeping decision from the justices that protects gay, lesbian and transgender employees from being disciplined, fired or turned down for a job based on their sexual orientation.