Biden admin leveraging Bostock ruling to reshape discrimination law nationwide
The Supreme Court’s Landmark Decision in Bostock v. Clayton County: A Game-Changer for Civil Rights Law
The Supreme Court’s groundbreaking ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County is revolutionizing civil rights law, surpassing the limited scope of its original intent. In 2020, the highest court in the land determined that sex discrimination, as defined by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which primarily focuses on employment law, includes sexual orientation and gender identity.
The Biden Administration’s Utilization of Bostock to Transform Federal Law
Since then, the Biden administration has seized upon this case to extend protection against sex discrimination in all federal laws, not just within the confines of Title VII. While Justice Neil Gorsuch, who authored the majority opinion, attempted to narrow the decision’s scope by emphasizing its applicability to employment law and maintaining the definition of “sex” based on reproductive biology, the ruling also acknowledged that individuals who identify as transgender can be victims of “sex discrimination” due to the relevance of their biological sex in determining discriminatory acts.
“The long-term implication of Justice Gorsuch’s decision is that Title IX would adopt the same rules, which would extend to biological males participating in female sports,” explained Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at the South Texas College of Law. “If you follow Gorsuch’s language, it could even lead to Catholic hospitals being compelled to perform hysterectomies on biologically female patients.”
The Biden administration could argue that under Bostock, refusing to perform a hysterectomy for transgender surgery while performing it for a female patient constitutes sex discrimination based on the patient’s sex or gender identity, according to Blackman.
Bostock’s Influence on Federal Law and Agency Rule Changes
On his first day in office, President Joe Biden signed an executive order that drew significant inspiration from Bostock, empowering the administration to initiate numerous agency rule changes using language such as “consistent with the reasoning in Bostock.” The executive order stated that, in line with Bostock’s rationale, laws prohibiting sex discrimination, along with their respective regulations, also prohibit discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation, extending the case’s impact far beyond Title VII.
As reported by the Washington Examiner, this line of reasoning has been employed to link federal grant money to the promotion of transgender ideology through a proposed rule change at the Office of Management and Budget. If implemented, this change would allow the government to consider ideological factors when distributing federal funds.
The Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services also invoked Bostock in December to intervene in a Florida lawsuit, arguing that the state’s ban on Medicaid reimbursements for transgender surgeries and related treatments violated federal anti-discrimination law.
Furthermore, the Department of Education utilized Bostock to implement similar rules in enforcing Title IX, contending that boys should have access to girls’ restrooms, changing facilities, and sports teams. Last year, the Department of Agriculture proposed revoking federal aid for free and reduced-price school lunches provided by schools that do not adhere to the Biden administration’s LGBT ideology rules, once again citing Bostock.
“When you’re a Democratic administration and you have a decision like Bostock, you try to push it as far as possible,” Blackman remarked. “If you look at what Gorsuch said, it’s not unreasonable to think that the same reasoning would apply to these other areas of the law.”
According to Blackman, once the expansion of protections against discrimination begins, it becomes challenging to contain. He drew a parallel between Bostock and the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized gay marriage, stating that once enough states adopt a form of anti-discrimination, it becomes nearly impossible to reverse the course.
Bostock’s Impact on Local Governments and Conservative State Laws
Bostock not only paved the way for the Biden administration to broaden the definition of “sex discrimination” in federal law but also provided local governments with a basis for non-compliance with conservative state laws.
After Governor Doug Burgum of North Dakota signed a series of laws restricting transgender ideology in schools, Fargo Public Schools refused to implement them, citing Bostock as the reason federal law takes precedence.
A similar situation unfolded in Virginia, where Governor Glenn Youngkin’s administration issued new guidance to school districts regarding the treatment of students identifying as transgender. Many districts chose not to follow this guidance.
Fairfax County Public Schools in Virginia cited “federal law” to reject the guidance, while Prince William County relied on the 4th Circuit opinion in Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board, which heavily relied on Bostock to rule against a school district attempting to prevent male-identifying biological females from using boys’ restrooms.
The Supreme Court declined to hear the Grimm case, with all justices except Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas voting against taking it up. Blackman viewed this as evidence that the majority of the justices are content with allowing the Bostock decision to stand.
Click here to read more from the Washington Examiner.
What are some of the challenges and opposition that have arisen in response to the Bostock decision expanding the definition of “sex” to include sexual orientation and gender identity?
R federal laws and regulations.”
Challenges to Bostock: Legal and Ideological Opposition
Despite the significant impact Bostock has had on federal law and policy, challenges and opposition have emerged from various quarters. Critics argue that the court overstepped its bounds by expanding the definition of “sex” to include sexual orientation and gender identity, asserting that such a move should be left to Congress. Some have claimed that this ruling infringes on religious freedom and undermines the rights of individuals and institutions to live and operate in alignment with their deeply held beliefs.
Legal experts suggest that the decision’s broad interpretation of “sex discrimination” may lead to unforeseen consequences in other areas of law, such as sports, healthcare, and education. Concerns have been raised regarding the impact on women’s rights and the fairness of athletic competition if biological males are allowed to compete against females. Critics argue that Bostock’s potential application to areas like healthcare may force medical professionals and institutions to violate their moral or religious beliefs.
The Ongoing Legacy of Bostock
The Bostock decision has undoubtedly reshaped the landscape of civil rights law in the United States, extending legal protections to the LGBTQ+ community in ways previously unimaginable. It has provided a powerful tool for the advancement of equality and the recognition of the rights and dignity of all individuals, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.
However, the continued legal battles and ideological debates surrounding the implications of Bostock highlight the complex and evolving nature of civil rights law. It remains to be seen how future courts and administrations will interpret and apply this landmark ruling.
Ultimately, Bostock v. Clayton County stands as a testament to the Supreme Court’s role in shaping the trajectory of civil rights in the United States. Whether celebrated or critiqued, its significance cannot be overstated, as it continues to redefine the boundaries of equality and the protections afforded to marginalized communities in American society.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
