WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court justices sounded closely split Tuesday and a bit uncertain over whether to make it illegal under federal law for companies and public agencies to fire employees solely because they are gay, lesbian or transgender, with Justice Neil M. Gorsuch likely the deciding vote.
“This case is really close,” said Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s first appointment to the high court, during oral arguments over whether the 1964 federal ban on discrimination on the basis of “sex” applies to LGBTQ people. He told an ACLU lawyer arguing in favor of a transgender woman who was fired: “I’m with you on the text.”
But Gorsuch went on to say that it is a matter for Congress, not the court. “It’s a question of judicial modesty,” he said.
The exchange summed up much of the two hours of arguments. The justices, or at least several of them, said they agreed that firing gays or transgender employees sounded like sex discrimination, which is prohibited by federal law. But others, including most of the conservatives, said that Congress in 1964 did not mean to outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
The historic law had been understood for decades as protecting women from being denied jobs or promotions that went to men instead.
But in recent years, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which enforces the law, decided it also protects gays, lesbians and transgender employees. It did by concluding that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is illegal discrimination because of sex. U.S. appeals courts in New York and Chicago similarly found the law applies to gay and lesbian workers, while the Cincinnati appeals court said it applies to transgender people.
The Justice Department argued that the law should not cover gay, lesbian and transgender workers. Noel Francisco, the Trump administration’s solicitor general, urged the court to reject the discrimination claims. “Sex and sexual orientation are two different traits,” he said. “This is an issue better left to Congress.”
But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court had repeatedly read the 1964 law to go beyond the problems of the 1960s. She cited the issue of sexual harassment, which did not emerge until the late 1970s. But in the end, she said, the court had no trouble concluding that sexual harassment constituted discrimination based on sex.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., a staunch conservative, took the opposite view. “We will be acting exactly like a legislature,” he said, if the court rules now that the 1964 ban includes discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked whether the court should be in the business of “updating old statutes” and said the word “sex” was understood at the time to mean men and women.
Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan, who argued on behalf of two gay men who were fired, said even with that understanding, the law should apply in this case.
“When a employer fires a male employee for dating men, but does not fire female employees who date men, he violates Title VII,” she said, referring to a provision of the 1964 law. “The employer has … discriminated against the man because he treats that man worse than women who want to do the same thing. And that discrimination is because of sex.”