Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf
Page Number: 69

32 

BOSTOCK v. CLAYTON COUNTY 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

public bathroom).

In 1964 and for many years thereafter, homosexuals were
barred from the military.  See, e.g., Army Reg. 635–89, §I(2) 
(a)  (July  15,  1966)  (“Personnel  who  voluntarily  engage  in
homosexual acts, irrespective of sex, will not be permitted 
to serve in the Army in any capacity, and their prompt sep-
aration is mandatory”); Army Reg. 600–443, §I(2) (April 10,
1953) (similar).  Prohibitions against homosexual conduct 
by members of the military were not eliminated until 2010. 
See Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010, 124 Stat. 3515
(repealing 10 U. S. C. §654, which required members of the
Armed Forces to be separated for engaging in homosexual 
conduct).

Homosexuals  were  also  excluded  from  entry  into  the 
United  States.    The  Immigration  and  Nationality  Act  of 
1952 (INA) excluded aliens “afflicted with psychopathic per-
sonality.”  8 U. S. C. §1182(a)(4) (1964 ed.).  In Boutilier v. 
INS, 387 U. S. 118, 120–123 (1967), this Court, relying on
the  INA’s  legislative  history,  interpreted  that  term  to  en-
compass homosexuals and upheld an alien’s deportation on 
that ground.  Three Justices disagreed with the majority’s 
interpretation  of  the  phrase  “psychopathic  personality.”27 
But it apparently did not occur to anyone to argue that the 
Court’s interpretation was inconsistent with the INA’s ex-
press prohibition of discrimination “because of sex.”  That 
was  how  our  society—and  this  Court—saw  things  a  half 
century ago.  Discrimination because of sex and discrimina-
tion because of sexual orientation were viewed as two en-
tirely different concepts. 

To its credit, our society has now come to recognize the 
injustice of past practices, and this recognition provides the 
impetus to “update” Title VII.  But that is not our job.  Our 
—————— 

27 Justices  Douglas  and  Fortas  thought  that  a  homosexual  is  merely 
“one,  who  by  some  freak,  is  the  product  of  an  arrested  development.” 
Boutilier, 387 U. S., at 127 (Douglas, J., dissenting); see also id., at 125 
(Brennan, J., dissenting) (based on lower court dissent).