Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf
Page Number: 171.0

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

27 

KAVANAUGH, J., dissenting 

Capitol Hill.  But the Constitution does not put the Legis-
lative Branch in the “position of a television quiz show con-
testant so that when a given period of time has elapsed and 
a problem remains unsolved by them, the federal judiciary 
may press a buzzer and take its turn at fashioning a solu-
tion.”  Rehnquist, The Notion of a Living Constitution, 54 
Texas L. Rev. 693, 700 (1976).  The proper role of the Judi-
ciary  in  statutory  interpretation  cases  is  “to  apply,  not 
amend,  the  work  of  the  People’s  representatives,”  even 
when the judges might think that “Congress should reenter 
the field and alter the judgments it made in the past.”  Hen-
son, 582 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 10–11). 
  Instead of a hard-earned victory won through the demo-
cratic  process, today’s  victory is brought about by  judicial 
dictate—judges latching on to a novel form of living literal-
ism to rewrite ordinary meaning and remake American law.  
Under the Constitution and laws of the United States, this 
Court  is  the  wrong  body  to  change  American  law  in  that 
way.    The  Court’s  ruling  “comes  at  a  great  cost  to  repre-
sentative  self-government.”    Hively,  853  F. 3d,  at  360 
(Sykes, J., dissenting).  And the implications of this Court’s 
usurpation of the legislative process will likely reverberate 
in unpredictable ways for years to come. 
  Notwithstanding  my  concern  about  the  Court’s  trans-
gression of the Constitution’s separation of powers, it is ap-
propriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved to-
day  by  gay  and  lesbian  Americans.    Millions  of  gay  and 
lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to 
achieve equal treatment in fact and in law.  They have ex-
hibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit—battling of-
ten steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to 
mention in their daily lives.  They have advanced powerful 
policy arguments and can take pride in today’s result.  Un-
der the Constitution’s separation of powers, however, I be-
lieve that it was Congress’s role, not this Court’s, to amend 
Title  VII.    I  therefore  must  respectfully  dissent  from  the