Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf
Page Number: 91.0

54 

BOSTOCK v. CLAYTON COUNTY 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

July 25, 2018) (change of gender on driver’s licenses); Whit-
aker, 858 F. 3d, at 1054 (school policy requiring students to 
use the bathroom that corresponds to the sex on birth cer-
tificate); Keohane v. Florida Dept. of Corrections Secretary, 
952 F. 3d 1257, 1262–1265 (CA11 2020) (transgender pris-
oner  denied  hormone  therapy  and  ability  to  dress  and 
groom as a female); Edmo v. Corizon, Inc., 935 F. 3d 757, 
767 (CA9 2019) (transgender prisoner requested sex reas-
signment  surgery);  cf.  Glenn  v.  Brumby,  663  F. 3d  1312, 
1320 (CA11 2011) (transgender individual fired for gender
non-conformity).

Although  the  Court  does  not  want  to  think  about  the
consequences  of  its  decision,  we  will  not  be  able  to  avoid 
those issues for long.  The entire Federal Judiciary will be
mired for years in disputes about the reach of the Court’s
reasoning. 

* 

* 

* 
The  updating  desire  to  which  the  Court  succumbs  no 
doubt arises from humane and generous impulses.  Today,
many Americans know individuals who are gay, lesbian, or 
transgender and want them to be treated with the dignity, 
consideration, and fairness that everyone deserves.  But the 
authority of this Court is limited to saying what the law is. 

The Court itself recognizes this: 

“The place to make new legislation . . . lies in Congress.
When it comes to statutory interpretation, our role is 
limited to applying the law’s demands as faithfully as
we can in the cases that come before us.”  Ante, at 31. 

It  is  easy  to  utter  such  words.  If  only  the  Court  would 

live by them.

I respectfully dissent.