Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf
Page Number: 165.0

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

21 

KAVANAUGH, J., dissenting 

discrimination is distinct from, and not a form of, sex dis-
crimination. 
  In sum, all of the usual indicators of ordinary meaning—
common parlance, common usage by Congress, the practice 
in  the  Executive  Branch,  the  laws  in  the  States,  and  the 
decisions of this Court—overwhelmingly establish that sex-
ual  orientation  discrimination  is  distinct  from,  and  not  a 
form of, sex discrimination.  The usage has been consistent 
across decades, in both the federal and state contexts. 
  Judge Sykes summarized the law and language this way: 
“To  a  fluent  speaker  of  the  English  language—then  and 
now—. . . discrimination ‘because of sex’ is not reasonably 
understood to include discrimination based on sexual orien-
tation,  a  different  immutable  characteristic.    Classifying 
people  by  sexual  orientation  is  different  than  classifying 
them by sex.  The two traits are categorically distinct and 
widely recognized as such.  There is no ambiguity or vague-
ness here.”  Hively, 853 F. 3d, at 363 (dissenting opinion). 
  To tie it all together, the plaintiffs have only two routes 
to succeed here.  Either they can say that literal meaning 
overrides ordinary meaning when the two conflict.  Or they 
can say that the ordinary meaning of the phrase “discrimi-
nate  because  of  sex”  encompasses  sexual  orientation  dis-
crimination.  But the first flouts long-settled principles of 
statutory  interpretation.    And  the  second  contradicts  the 
widespread ordinary use of the English language in Amer-
ica. 

II 
  Until the last few years, every U. S. Court of Appeals to 
address this question concluded that Title VII does not pro-
hibit discrimination because of sexual orientation.  As noted 
above, in the first 10 Courts of Appeals to consider the is-
sue, all 30 federal judges agreed that Title VII does not pro-
hibit  sexual  orientation  discrimination.    30  out  of  30