Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf
Page Number: 81

44 

BOSTOCK v. CLAYTON COUNTY 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

2007).

The Court observes that “[t]he people are entitled to rely
on  the  law  as  written,  without  fearing  that  courts  might
disregard its plain terms,” ante, at 24, but it has no qualms 
about disregarding over 50 years of uniform judicial inter-
pretation of Title VII’s plain text.  Rather, the Court makes 
the  jaw-dropping  statement  that  its  decision  exemplifies 
“judicial humility.” Ante, at 31.  Is it humble to maintain, 
not only that Congress did not understand the terms it en-
acted in 1964, but that all the Circuit Judges on all the pre-
2017  cases  could  not  see  what  the  phrase  discrimination
“because of sex” really means?  If today’s decision is humble, 
it is sobering to imagine what the Court might do if it de-
cided to be bold. 

IV 
What  the  Court  has  done  today––interpreting  discrimi-
nation  because  of  “sex”  to  encompass  discrimination  be-
cause of sexual orientation or gender identity––is virtually 
certain  to  have  far-reaching  consequences.  Over  100  fed-
eral  statutes  prohibit  discrimination  because  of  sex.  See 
Appendix  C,  infra;  e.g.,  20  U. S. C.  §1681(a)  (Title  IX);  42
U. S. C.  §3631  (Fair  Housing  Act);  15  U. S. C.  1691(a)(1)
(Equal Credit Opportunity Act).  The briefs in these cases 
have  called  to  our  attention  the  potential  effects  that  the 
Court’s reasoning may have under some of these laws, but 
the Court waves those considerations aside.  As to Title VII 
itself,  the  Court  dismisses  questions  about  “bathrooms, 
locker rooms, or anything else of the kind.”  Ante, at 31.  And 
it  declines  to  say  anything  about  other  statutes  whose
terms mirror Title VII’s. 

The Court’s brusque refusal to consider the consequences
of its reasoning is irresponsible.  If the Court had allowed 
the  legislative  process  to  take  its  course,  Congress  would 
have  had  the  opportunity  to  consider  competing  interests 
and  might  have  found  a  way  of  accommodating  at  least