Clarence Thomas Knocks Landmark Supreme Court LGBTQ+ Ruling—'Incorrect'

Newsweek

5 hours ago

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas criticized a landmark LGBTQ+ rights case as being decided based on "incorrect" reasoning in a new ruling issued on Wednesday.
Newsweek reached out to the court for comment via its public information office email on Wednesday.
Why It Matters
The Supreme Court has considerable authority to interpret the laws of the United States, and its recent rulings had extensive impact on key policies around LGBTQ+ rights. Thomas, viewed as among the court's most conservative justices, has been critical of these rulings, such as in Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the court ruled the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination against employees on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
What To Know
The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued their latest case on LGBTQ+ rights in U.S. v. Skrmetti, upholding a Tennessee law that bars gender-affirming care for transgender youth.
Plaintiffs in the case argued the law benefits the Equal Protection Clause because it prohibits transgender minors from receiving hormones based on their biological sex; a transgender boy would not be able to receive testosterone, but the law does not apply to cisgender boys, those who identify with their birth gender.
The court wrote in the majority opinion that the reasoning from the Bostock case does not back up their view. Thomas, in a concurring opinion, went further and took aim at the court's ruling in the 2020 Bostock ruling.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas sits during a group photo of the jurists on April 23, 2021, in Washington, D.C.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas sits during a group photo of the jurists on April 23, 2021, in Washington, D.C.
Erin Schaff-Pool/Getty Images
Thomas wrote that he believes the "Bostock majority's logic 'fails on its own terms.'"
"While the majority concludes that SB1 does not discriminate based on sex, even under Bostock's incorrect reasoning, I would make clear that, in constitutional challenges, courts need not engage Bostock at all," he wrote.
Thomas dissented from the majority in the original Bostock ruling, joining an opinion penned by Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote, "There is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation. The document that the Court releases is in the form of a judicial opinion interpreting a statute, but that is deceptive."
Alito wrote at the time that while a bill extending those protections passed the House of Representatives, it had stalled in the Senate.
"Title VII's prohibition of discrimination because of 'sex; still means what it has always meant. But the Court is not deterred by these constitutional niceties. Usurping the constitutional authority of the other branches, the Court has essentially taken H.R. 5's provision on employment discrimination and issued it under the guise of statutory interpretation," the dissent reads.
Thomas has also expressed interest in revisiting the court's 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which said same-sex couples have marriage rights under the Equal Protection Clause.
He wrote in June 2022—after the High Court ruled to overturn Roe v. Wade—the case that guaranteed reproductive rights across the country—that he wanted to see the court revisit Obergefell.
"We have a duty to 'correct the error' established in those precedents," Thomas wrote.
What People Are Saying
In the Skrmetti ruling, the High Court wrote: "We have not yet considered whether Bostock's reasoning reaches beyond the Title VII context, and we need not do so here. For reasons we have already explained, changing a minor's sex or transgender status does not alter the application of SB1."
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in Wednesday's ruling: "Yet the majority refuses to call a spade a spade. Instead, it obfuscates a sex classification that is plain on the face of this statute, all to avoid the mere possibility that a different court could strike down SB1, or categorical healthcare bans like it."
What Happens Next
It is unclear if the Supreme Court will revisit the precedents set in the 2015 Obergefell ruling.