The opinion, which suggests a strong concern about due process, will nevertheless be cited as evidence of the SCOTUS nominee's "uniformly conservative" record.
The passing of a feminist heroine, and a giant of American jurisprudence.
The ruling was issued by a conservative Trump appointee.
The issue may be headed for the Supreme Court, which hopefully will reverse its 1981 ruling in Rostker v. Goldberg.
Distorted partisan descriptions of the Department of Education changes could be doing real damage.
Good news for free association at college!
"[The Oberlin] panel's decision was arguably inexplicable. Per the terms of Oberlin's Policy, intoxication does not negate consent—only 'incapacitation' does.... And the record here provided no apparent basis for a finding that Roe [was incapacitated]."
Both sides in the landmark employment discrimination decision agree that laws should generally be interpreted based on the "ordinary meaning" of their words. But they differ on what that entails.
The decision in Bostock v. Clayton County is well-justified from the standpoint of textualism (a theory associated with conservatives), but less clearly so from the standpoint of purposivism (often associated with liberals).
Justice Neil Gorsuch's majority decision offers a textualist argument for the ruling.
Justice Gorsuch writes for six-justice majority that discrimination based upon sexual orientation or transgender status is sex discrimination under Title VII.
The justices weigh abortion, school choice, and federal anti-discrimination law.
Does the text of Title VII prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status?
"Other statements by Complainant ... along with undisputed other evidence, entirely disprove her bare assertions that she was incapacitated."
The school policy allows girls to wear small earrings, but doesn't allow them for boys.
but the New York City Regional Emergency Medical Services Council denied the application, by a 12-7 vote.
Justices weigh textual conflict over what counts as “sex discrimination” versus what Congress originally intended.
Does the Civil Rights Act of 1964 cover sexual orientation and gender identity?
It’s the Trump administration vs. civil rights groups on federal protections from workplace discrimination.
Plus: Trump forcing U.S. companies out of China?, Joe Arpaio is running again, sex discrimination goes to the Supreme Court, and more...
The policy denies citizenship to some children of married US-citizen same-sex couples if the child is born abroad, in situations where the child of opposite-sex couples are automatically considered citizens. It is a clear case of unconstitutional sex discrimination.
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10
