Tag Archives: Sexual Orientation

Title VII and Sexual Orientation/Gender Identity — Some Thoughts on the Supreme Court Argument

Most summaries of the Supreme Court arguments on the three Title VII cases on sexual orientation/gender identity reflect that the arguments were a rather convoluted mess.  While I have a hunch that we are heading toward a 5-4 decision with the judges splitting on partisan lines, there was enough in the argument to blur the lines as justices seemed to depart from their traditional stances.

One of the big debate in legal fields over the past 100 years is about the theory of “legal realism.”  In oversimplified terms, legal realism contends that judges are just politicians wearing robes and that they decide cases based solely on their policy preferences.  The alternative theory, as expounded by Chief Justice Roberts during his confirmation hearing, is that judges are just umpires calling the balls and strikes based on rules drawn up by others.  In this latter school of thought, judges are trying to interpret the meaning of texts and should not be concerned about the real world consequences of their decisions.

Much of the debate in the ball and strikes theory is about the proper method of interpreting legal texts.  In recent years, conservatives have been big on textualism.  Textualism posits that words in a text have meaning.  If some of the terms are ambiguous, there are rules that can be applied to clarify the text (e.g., by looking at the term in the context of that statute and how that term is used in other similar statutes).  The alternative to textualism is often a reference to legislative history, but — as many statutes were written during a time when liberals had the upper hand in Congress — legislative history (primarily the reports summarizing what a bill was intended to achieve) often supported a more liberal result.  So conservative judges argued that those reports were never actually approved by Congress and that judges should only look at what Congress actually passed — the statutory language itself. Continue Reading...

Posted in Civil Rights, Judicial, LGBT | Also tagged , , , Comments Off on Title VII and Sexual Orientation/Gender Identity — Some Thoughts on the Supreme Court Argument

Supreme Court Term Preview — October 2019 Term (Part I)

It’s that time of year again.  October 7 is the First Monday in October meaning that the Justices of the United States Supreme Court will be back in D.C. for another term of arguments.  This term is a little bit unusual for recent terms in that — when the Supreme Court had left for the summer — they had already granted review in enough cases to fill the first four (October, November, December, and January) argument sessions.  Recently, the Supreme Court has had trouble granting enough cases to fill the first three argument sessions and have had (at most) one or two cases left over for January when they meet at the end of September to begin adding cases.

(For a little explanation of what I mean about argument sessions and filling them.   From October through April, the Supreme Court has seven argument sessions.  Each session consists of arguments on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday — excluding any federal or religious holidays.  A “normal” argument day consists of two arguments on two cases.  Ech argument is one hour split evenly between the two-sides although time is often allocated to the Solicitor General to express the government’s position.  Typically, there is a two-week gap between each argument session except for longer breaks after the December and maybe January session.  A Supreme Court case has two rounds of written arguments.  The first round is an application to the Supreme Court to take a case — officially called a petition for writ of certiorari.  These pleadings have relatively short page limits and are designed mostly to explain why the case is important enough for the court to take.  While there are time limits on these pleadings, the Supreme Court is relatively liberal about granting extensions.  If the Supreme Court decides to grant review, there is a second round of written arguments on the merits of the case followed by the oral argument.    The time limits to complete the second round of written arguments is approximately 105 days or 10 days before oral argument whichever is earliest — and extensions are almost unheard of.  Thus, oral argument has to be at least three months after the case is accepted for full briefing and argument — and four is better.  So, any case heard in the first three months has to be accepted before the Supreme Court recesses at the end of June,  And once the Supreme Court returns, any January cases have to be accepted by the end of the October session, etc. until all of the cases for this year’s term have to be accepted by the end of the January session.  Any case accepted after January is for the next year’s term barring an unusual case in which the Supreme Court orders accelerated briefing like what happened last term on the Census case.)

At this point in time, the Supreme Court has issued its argument calendars for the October, November, and December argument sessions.  While it has not yet released the calendar for the January session, it is likely that most of the remaining accepted cases will be heard in January (although some add-ons from cases accepted in October is possible).  Each of the first three parts of this series will focus on one argument session with the fourth part focusing on the cases left over for likely January argument and possible cases that might be granted for the rest of the term.  Any attempt to guess what is likely to be granted is highly speculative.  The Supreme Court accepts about 1% of the cases for actual full review.  Even weeding out the significant amount of long shot petitions, the strongest cases have — at most — a 1 in 10 shot at being granted review. Continue Reading...

Posted in Civil Rights, Judicial, LGBT | Also tagged , , , , , , Comments Off on Supreme Court Term Preview — October 2019 Term (Part I)

Supreme Court and Sexual Orientation

While we wait for the major decisions from this term over the next seven weeks, the Supreme Court has added three cases for next term (likely to be argued in the Fall and decided next Spring) involving sexual orientation and employment.  Two cases involve gay men who allege that they were terminated for being homosexual and one involves a transgender individual who alleges discrimination based on that status.  While at the lower court level, all three claimed, in part, that one of the factors in the employment decision was their failure to comply with gender stereotypes (i.e. they did not conform to the employer’s expectations for male behavior), that claim is only part of the Supreme Court case for the transgender individual.

These cases are going to be difficult for the employees to win, especially the two gay men.  Their claim is statutory, based on Title VII (of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended) which bars discrimination in employment “because of sex.”  And the natural reading of “because of sex” is “because of gender.”  That is the way that the Supreme Court has always read the provision.  And, even today, many states and government agencies use “sex” when they mean gender (e.g., on driver’s licenses and application forms).  The arguments of the employees is hindered by the fact that their claim is statutory rather than constitutional.  Other than the most conservative justices, the justices are somewhat willing to apply constitutional texts and principles to new issues.  Put simply, a constitutional amendment is viewed as an extraordinary thing.  Thus, if a claim is similar enough to existing constitutional protections, courts will sometimes find that it fits under those protections. 

On the other hand, notwithstanding the current problems in Congress, courts tend to see statutory problems as something that the legislature could fix if the legislature wanted to fix the problems.  And Congress has failed to pass proposed legislation that would amend Title VII to include sexual orientation (or create Title VII-type protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation).  Continue Reading...

Posted in Civil Rights, Judicial, LGBT | Also tagged , Comments Off on Supreme Court and Sexual Orientation