Free From the Limits of the Drafters' Imagination

Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result. 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.

-Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia

Justice Neil Gorsuch,  

Supreme Court of the United States

In case you missed it, Monday the Supreme Court of the United States handed up a 6-3 opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, et al. confirming that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation.  The six-member majority was an atypical amalgam of the Court's four "liberal" Justices (Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor), Chief Justice Roberts, and the opinion's author, Justice Gorsuch, a conservative jurist cut from the same cloth as the late Antonin Scalia, whose death created the opening on the Court that DJT nominated Justice Gorsuch to fill. 

If you enjoy the deliciousness of irony, as I do, then you shall of course recall that Justice Scalia died while President Obama was still in office and that great American statesman, Mitch McConnell, refused to consider the nomination of President Obama's choice, the Hon. Merrick Garland, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.  But for McConnell's deliberate refusal to permit the Senate to even consider Judge Garland's nomination, which he has identified as one of his proudest moments, Justice Scalia's seat would not have been open when President Trump took office in January, 2017, or when he nominated Neil Gorsuch to fill it shortly thereafter.  The Senate confirmed Justice Gorsuch's nomination on April 7, 2017 and President Trump was understandably pleased: 

Three-plus years later, I for one am of the opinion that Justice Gorsuch has proven himself to be a valued member of the Court.  I do not always agree with his position on a point of law or in a particular case.  Nor would I expect to do so. I, similarly, am of the opinion that Justice Ginsburg has been a valued member of the Court although I do not always agree with her position on a point of law or in a particular case.  In twenty-six years of practicing law I have yet to encounter a judge with whom I have always been in complete agreement. Should I live long enough to practice law for another quarter-century-plus, I shall not expect to encounter one. 

When you have the time, and if such things interest you, then you might want to read Justice Gorsuch's opinion as well as Justice Alito's dissent and Justice Kavanaugh's dissent. You might want to set aside a bit of time to do so. The three opinions together comprise approximately sixty pages of material.  

I leave you with this from Justice Gorsuch's majority opinion, because at day's end, it was these words that carried the day: 

But the limits of the drafters' imagination supply no reason to ignore the law's demands. When the express terms of a statute give us one answer and extra-textual considerations suggest another, it's no contest. Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit.

-Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia

Justice Neil Gorsuch,  

Supreme Court of the United States 

-AK