Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf
Page Number: 80.0

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

43 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

that it covered discrimination on this basis.40  These were 
also the positions of the EEOC.41  In enacting substantial
changes to Title VII, the 1991 Congress abrogated numer-
ous judicial decisions with which it disagreed.  If it also dis-
agreed with the decisions regarding sexual orientation and 
transgender discrimination, it could have easily overruled 
those as well, but it did not do so.42 

After 1991, six other Courts of Appeals reached the issue 
of sexual orientation discrimination, and until 2017, every 
single Court of Appeals decision understood Title VII’s pro-
hibition of “discrimination because of sex” to mean discrim-
ination because of biological sex.  See, e.g., Higgins v. New 
Balance  Athletic  Shoe,  Inc., 194  F.  3d  252,  259  (CA1 
1999); Simonton  v.  Runyon, 232  F.  3d  33,  36  (CA2
2000); Bibby v. Philadelphia Coca Cola Bottling Co., 260 F. 
3d  257,  261  (CA3  2001),  cert.  denied, 534  U. S.  1155 
(2002); Wrightson  v.  Pizza  Hut  of  Am.,  Inc., 99  F.  3d  138, 
143  (CA4  1996); Hamm  v.  Weyauwega  Milk  Products, 
Inc., 332  F.  3d  1058,  1062  (CA7  2003); Medina  v.  Income 
Support Div., N. M., 413 F. 3d 1131, 1135 (CA10 2005); Ev-
ans  v.  Georgia  Regional  Hospital, 850  F.  3d  1248,  1255 
(CA11),  cert.  denied, 583  U. S.  ___  (2017).    Similarly,  the
other Circuit to formally address whether Title VII applies 
to claims of discrimination based on transgender status had 
also rejected the argument, creating unanimous consensus 
prior  to  the  Sixth  Circuit’s  decision  below.    See  Etsitty  v. 
Utah Transit Authority, 502 F. 3d 1215, 1220–1221 (CA10 
—————— 

40 See Ulane, 742 F. 2d, at 1084–1085; Sommers v. Budget Mktg., Inc., 
667 F. 2d 748, 750 (CA8 1982) (per curiam); Holloway v. Arthur Andersen 
& Co., 566 F. 2d 659, 661–663 (CA9 1977). 

41 Dillon  v.  Frank,  1990  WL  1111074,  *3–*4  (EEOC,  Feb.  14,  1990); 

LaBate v. USPS, 1987 WL 774785, *2 (EEOC, Feb. 11, 1987). 

42 In more recent legislation, when Congress has wanted to reach acts
committed  because  of  sexual  orientation  or  gender  identity,  it  has  re-
ferred to those grounds by name.  See, e.g., 18 U. S. C. §249(a)(2)(A) (hate
crimes)  (enacted  2009);  34  U. S. C.  §12291(b)(13)(A)  (certain  federally
funded programs) (enacted 2013).