Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf
Page Number: 36

32 

BOSTOCK v. CLAYTON COUNTY 

Opinion of the Court 

might  or  might  not  qualify  as  unlawful  discrimination  or 
find  justifications  under  other  provisions  of  Title  VII  are 
questions for future cases, not these. 

Separately, the employers fear that complying with Title
VII’s requirement in cases like ours may require some em-
ployers  to  violate  their  religious  convictions.   We  are  also 
deeply  concerned  with  preserving  the  promise  of  the  free
exercise  of  religion  enshrined  in  our  Constitution;  that
guarantee lies at the heart of our pluralistic society.  But 
worries about how Title VII may intersect with religious lib-
erties are nothing new; they even predate the statute’s pas-
sage.  As a result of its deliberations in adopting the law,
Congress included an express statutory exception for reli-
gious organizations.  §2000e–1(a).  This Court has also rec-
ognized that the First Amendment can bar the application 
of  employment  discrimination  laws  “to  claims  concerning 
the  employment  relationship  between  a  religious  institu-
tion  and  its  ministers.”    Hosanna-Tabor  Evangelical  Lu-
theran  Church  and  School  v.  EEOC,  565  U. S.  171,  188 
(2012).  And  Congress  has  gone  a  step  further  yet  in  the 
Religious  Freedom  Restoration  Act  of  1993  (RFRA),  107
Stat. 1488, codified at 42 U. S. C. §2000bb et seq.  That stat-
ute  prohibits  the  federal  government  from  substantially 
burdening a person’s exercise of religion unless it demon-
strates that doing so both furthers a compelling governmen-
tal  interest  and  represents  the  least  restrictive  means  of 
furthering that interest.  §2000bb–1.  Because RFRA oper-
ates as a kind of super statute, displacing the normal oper-
ation  of  other  federal  laws,  it  might  supersede  Title  VII’s
commands in appropriate cases.  See §2000bb–3. 

But how these doctrines protecting religious liberty inter-
act with Title VII are questions for future cases too.  Harris 
Funeral  Homes  did  unsuccessfully  pursue  a  RFRA-based 
defense in the proceedings below.  In its certiorari petition, 
however, the company declined to seek review of that ad-
verse decision, and no other religious liberty claim is now