Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf
Page Number: 82.0

Cite as:  590 U. S. ____ (2020) 

45 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

some  of  them.  In  addition,  Congress  might  have  crafted
special rules for some of the relevant statutes.  But by in-
tervening  and  proclaiming  categorically  that  employment
discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender iden-
tity is simply a form of discrimination because of sex, the 
impeded—and  perhaps  effectively
Court  has  greatly 
ended—any  chance  of  a  bargained  legislative  resolution.
Before  issuing  today’s  radical  decision,  the  Court  should 
have given some thought to where its decision would lead. 
As  the  briefing  in  these  cases  has  warned,  the  position 
that the Court now adopts will threaten freedom of religion,
freedom of speech, and personal privacy and safety.  No one 
should think that the Court’s decision represents an unal-
loyed victory for individual liberty. 

I will briefly note some of the potential consequences of 
the Court’s decision, but I do not claim to provide a compre-
hensive survey or to suggest how any of these issues should 
necessarily play out under the Court’s reasoning.43
  “[B]athrooms,  locker  rooms,  [and  other  things]  of  [that] 
kind.”  The Court may wish to avoid this subject, but it is a
matter  of  concern  to  many  people  who  are  reticent  about
disrobing or using toilet facilities in the presence of individ-
uals whom they regard as members of the opposite sex.  For 
some, this may simply be a question of modesty, but for oth-
ers, there is more at stake.  For women who have been vic-
timized by sexual assault or abuse, the experience of seeing
an unclothed person with the anatomy of a male in a con-
fined  and  sensitive  location  such  as  a  bathroom  or  locker 
room can cause serious psychological harm.44 

Under  the  Court’s  decision,  however,  transgender  per-
sons  will  be  able  to  argue  that  they  are  entitled  to  use  a
bathroom or locker room that is reserved for persons of the 
—————— 

43 Contrary  to  the  implication  in  the  Court’s  opinion,  I  do  not  label 
these potential consequences “undesirable.”  Ante, at 31.  I mention them 
only as possible implications of the Court’s reasoning. 

44 Brief for Defend My Privacy et al. as Amici Curiae 7–10.