The Supreme Court’s decisions regarding transgender rights have led to significant legal and political ramifications in the United States. In a pivotal ruling in 2020, the court affirmed that federal law protects transgender workers from discrimination. This landmark case, known as Bostock v. Clayton County, was seen as a potential turning point for the rights of transgender individuals across various sectors, extending beyond employment to include education and healthcare.
The ruling, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, established that discrimination against transgender individuals constitutes unlawful sex discrimination. Advocacy groups celebrated this decision, anticipating broader protections for transgender people in various contexts. In the aftermath, lower courts began referencing Bostock to support transgender rights, including access to appropriate bathrooms and participation in desired sports teams.
Despite this progress, the legal landscape has become increasingly tumultuous. In 2021, the Biden administration invoked Bostock to implement regulations safeguarding transgender individuals from discrimination in healthcare settings. However, the court’s majority, now leaning more conservative, has posed challenges to the foundations of Bostock. Republican-controlled states have enacted measures that limit transgender rights, particularly in education, healthcare, and athletics.
David Cole, a law professor at Georgetown University and former national legal director of the ACLU, remarked on the dual impact of Bostock. “It had great potential as a legal matter and, more broadly, as a political matter,” he stated. “The backlash has been brutal.”
The recent decision in June 2022 further highlighted the court’s shift. In the case of United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court upheld state bans on hormone treatments for transgender youth, asserting that these restrictions were based on age and medical use, rather than sex discrimination. Dissenting justices argued that this ruling contradicts the principles established in Bostock.
As the court prepares to hear cases concerning the participation of transgender women in female sports teams, the implications of the Skrmetti ruling are under scrutiny. Kara Ingelhart, director of the LGBTQI+ Rights Clinic at Northwestern University, described the situation, stating, “Bostock crystallized an understanding for the populace, both on rights and responsibilities under the law. Then Skrmetti created confusion and a lot of mistrust.”
The Skrmetti ruling illustrated a shifting perspective among the justices. Chief Justice John Roberts, who previously supported transgender rights in Bostock, authored the majority opinion in Skrmetti, which did not address the broader implications of the Bostock decision. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who joined the court after Bostock, noted in her separate opinion that transgender individuals should not receive heightened protection against discrimination.
During oral arguments, Barrett questioned the existence of a historical pattern of discrimination against transgender individuals. In response, Justice Sonia Sotomayor emphasized the long-standing discrimination faced by transgender people in various sectors, including healthcare and employment. She pointed out the discriminatory policies enacted during the Trump administration, which included expelling transgender servicemembers from the military.
The upcoming cases concerning transgender athletes could further delineate the limits of the Bostock ruling. States like Idaho and West Virginia defend their bans on transgender women in female sports by arguing that it is unfair and unsafe to allow individuals assigned male at birth to compete against cisgender women. They assert that Bostock’s principles apply solely to employment discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
As the court prepares to hear these cases, the outcome may have lasting consequences for transgender rights. The legal battles surrounding these issues underscore a complex interplay of rights, responsibilities, and societal perceptions of gender identity. With public sentiment shifting, the justices face mounting pressure to navigate a contentious landscape while upholding the principles of equality and justice.
