Social Movements & the Law

"On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court ruled in Bostock v. Clayton County, in a 6 to 3 decision with a majority opinion authored by conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation. The decision was a surprise to many, if not most, observers, but as Jason Pierceson explores in this work, it was not completely unanticipated. The decision was grounded in a recent, but well-developed, shift in federal jurisprudence on the question of LGBTQ rights that occurred around 2000, with gender identity claims faring better in federal court after decades of skepticism. The most important precedent for these cases was a 1989 Supreme Court case that did not deal directly with LGBTQ rights: Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. The Court ruled in Price Waterhouse that "sex stereotyping" is a form of discrimination under Title VII, a provision that prohibits discrimination in employment based upon sex. Anne Hopkins was a cisgender, heterosexual woman who was denied a promotion at her accounting firm for being too "masculine." At the time of the decision, and in the wake of the devastating decision for the LGBTQ movement in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), the case was not viewed as creating a strong precedential foundation for LGBTQ rights claims, especially claims based upon sexual orientation. Even in the context of gender identity, the connection was not made to the emerging movement for transgender rights until a decade later. In the 2000s, however, federal courts were consistently applying the case to protect transgender individuals. While not the result of coordinated litigation, nor initially connected to the LGBTQ rights movement, Price Waterhouse has been one of the most important and powerful precedents in recent years, outside of the marriage equality cases. This book tells the story of how this "accidental" precedent evolved into such a crucial case for contemporary LGBTQ rights"--

The right of same-sex couples to marry provoked decades of intense conflict before it was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015. Yet some of the most divisive contests shaping the quest for marriage equality occurred not on the culture-war front lines but within the ranks of LGBTQ advocates. Nathaniel Frank tells the dramatic story of how an idea that once seemed unfathomable--and for many gays and lesbians undesirable--became a legal and moral right in just half a century. Awakening begins in the 1950s, when millions of gays and lesbians were afraid to come out, let alone fight for equal treatment. Across the social upheavals of the next two decades, a gay rights movement emerged with the rising awareness that same-sex love is equal to love everywhere. As movement leaders and ordinary gay people created new communities, alliances, and ideas, a tight-knit cadre of (mostly) gay and lesbian lawyers began to focus on legal recognition for same-sex couples, eventually creating a long-term strategy to win marriage rights in the courts. But first they had to win over members of their own LGBTQ community who declined to make marriage a priority, while reining in others who charged ahead heedless of their carefully laid plans, and often at odds with them. All the while, they had to fight against virulent antigay opponents and capture the American center by spreading the simple message that love is love--ultimately propelling the LGBTQ community, and America, immeasurably closer to justice.--

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett served for nearly three years on the board of private Christian schools that effectively barred admission to children of same-sex parents and made it plain that openly gay and lesbian teachers weren’t welcome in the classroom...

The Supreme Court’s recent decision on workplace protections for LGBTQ people has far-reaching implications for LGBTQ rights.

Aimee Stephens was not prepared for the outpouring of affection that greeted her when she emerged from the U.S. Supreme Court after witnessing history in the making. The Court’s nine justices, for

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, lashed out on Monday at the religious liberty implications of the Supreme Court's 2015 decision that cleared the way for same-sex marriage nationwide.

The idea that people of faith must be protected from discrimination—even when that means they themselves will discriminate against others—is gaining traction in the courts.

The LGBTQ community faces continued challenges from religious objectors, ranging from adoption and foster care to the rights of transgender people.

A foster care agency in Philadelphia that wants to turn away same-sex couples is putting anti-discrimination protections in jeopardy in the name of religious liberty.

The Supreme Court says the federal ban on discrimination "based on sex" applies to gay, lesbian and transgender employees.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) prohibits discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. On June 15, 2020, the U.S

Fear and outrage after two justices issue ‘appalling’ attack on 2015 decision enabling same-sex marriage

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that Philadelphia violated the First Amendment by refusing to contract with Catholic Social Services.

Experts say the decision has implications for everything from housing to health care.

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a lower court ruling allowing a transgender student to use a bathroom corresponding to his gender identity.

US News is a recognized leader in college, grad school, hospital, mutual fund, and car rankings. Track elected officials, research health conditions, and find news you can use in politics, business, health, and education.

Jim Obergefell and Richard Hodges say that Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation is a threat to the rights of the LGBTQ community.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito on Monday used the case of a Kentucky clerk who refused to give gay couples marriage licenses to declare that religious liberty has been under siege since the Supreme Court in 2015 found a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Post submitted by Lucas Acosta (he/him), former Deputy Director of Communications, PoliticsEarly reports are suggesting that Seventh Circuit U.S. Appeals Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett is the odds on favorite…

The Supreme Court is threatening to take away federal workplace protections for LGBTQ+ Americans.

U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects gay, lesbian, and transgender employees from discrimination based on sex. The ruling was 6-3, with Justice Neil Gorsuch, President Trump's first appointee to the court, writing the majority opinion.

The Court is set to consider whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 covers LGBTQ people

The Obama and Trump administrations have used their power to shape legal interpretations of "sex discrimination" in very different ways. Here's a rundown on what's changed for LGBTQ rights in the U.S.

President Joe Biden signed an executive order overturning the previous administration's ban on the service of transgender individuals in the military.

As homelessness among transgender people increases, the Trump administration is attempting to cruelly and illegally restrict their access to critically needed housing services.

Trump has reversed Obama-era protections that prohibit discrimination in health care based on gender identity. Critics warn the rule could harm a vulnerable group — LGBTQ people — during a pandemic.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton delivers remarks on International Human Rights Day in Geneva, Switzerland on December 6, 2011. [Go to http://video.state.gov for more video and text transcript.]