Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf
Page Number: 148.0

4 

BOSTOCK v. CLAYTON COUNTY 

KAVANAUGH, J., dissenting 

law.  Rather, Congress and the President enacted new leg-
islation,  as  prescribed  by  the  Constitution’s  separation  of 
powers.

For several decades, Congress has considered numerous
bills to prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual
orientation.   But  as  noted  above,  although  Congress  has
come close, it has not yet shouldered a bill over the legisla-
tive finish line. 

In the face of the unsuccessful legislative efforts (so far)
to  prohibit  sexual  orientation  discrimination,  judges  may 
not  rewrite  the  law  simply  because  of  their  own  policy 
views.  Judges may not update the law merely because they 
think that Congress does not have the votes or the fortitude. 
Judges  may  not  predictively  amend  the  law  just  because
they believe that Congress is likely to do it soon anyway.

If  judges  could  rewrite  laws  based  on  their  own  policy 
views,  or  based  on  their  own  assessments  of  likely  future 
legislative  action,  the  critical  distinction  between  legisla-
tive  authority  and  judicial  authority  that  undergirds  the
Constitution’s separation of powers would collapse, thereby 
threatening the impartial rule of law and individual liberty.
As  James  Madison  stated:  “Were  the  power  of  judging
joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject 
would be exposed to arbitrary controul, for the judge would 
then be the legislator.”  The Federalist No. 47, at 326 (citing
Montesquieu).  If judges could, for example, rewrite or up-
date securities laws or healthcare laws or gun laws or envi-
ronmental laws simply based on their own policy views, the 
Judiciary  would  become  a  democratically  illegitimate  su-
per-legislature—unelected,  and  hijacking  the  important 
policy decisions reserved by the Constitution to the people’s
elected representatives.

Because judges interpret the law as written, not as they
might wish it were written, the first 10 U. S. Courts of Ap-
peals to consider whether Title VII prohibits sexual orien-
tation  discrimination  all  said  no.  Some  30  federal  judges