Thread by @LambdaLegal

LIVE NOW: Tune in to our Virtual Town Hall on FB Live to hear our expert lawyers @KarenLLoewy, @DianaKFlynn and @omargp discuss today's momentous Supreme Court opinion, moderated by @arielpoems!
#LGBTQ #DecisionDay
Watch here:
facebook.com/lambdalegal/po…

Ariel opens our discussion by naming the importance of how employment is a massive predictor of survival for LGBTQ people, particularly those who hold multiple marginalized identities. Black LGBTQ people, particularly Black trans women, are disproportionately denied employment.

.@omargp analyzes a macroscopic perspective of Title VII interpretations.

Cites Glenn v. Brumby. This ruling in 2011 found discrimination based on transgender status is sex discrimination.

lambdalegal.org/in-court/cases…

.@omargp cites several other cases.

All cases asked if these employees were covered by Title VII. We laid down a roadmap based in textualism to prove this.

Historically, when we were not named counsel, we joined as amici in cases w/@ACLU, @TransLawCenter, @GLADLaw & others.

Omar and Diana concur: The question presented here and solved in this case today was whether #TitleVII covers SOGI discrimination. That is decided.

.@KarenLLoewy names that we've seen the way SCOTUS has recognized the dignity of LGBTQ people increasingly over the last 2 decades, naming Lawrence, Obergefell, etc.

Now it is time for the court to stop looking at the atmospherics and dig into the real questions.

.@KarenLLoewy: You can't textually consider questions of sexual orientation and gender identity without considering sex. Sex is inherently a part of the calculus.

Discriminating against someone because they have a relationship with someone of the same sex is sex-related.

.@KarenLLoewy: There is something—as a lawyer—particularly gratifying when you have worked hard and provided the court with a roadmap, and the court has walked right down that road! #DecisionDay

Once again: When you treat someone differently because of the sex they were assigned at birth, that is inherently sex discrimination. #DecisionDay

.@DianaKFlynn: This is a fairly "little c" conservative decision, but it's important to recognize this is broadly applicable.

While the Court said they were expressly only deciding on Title VII, most statutes that prohibit sex discrimination prohibit it because of sex.

This is language that the Court looked at specifically. If you're deciding differently because of someone's sex, you've violated the law.

This will allow us to make strong arguments in virtually all federal rulings that concern discrimination "based on sex".

While we're absolutely thrilled about this ruling, it does not make it ANY less important to PASS the #EqualityAct!

That will shortcut a lot of this fight, and will guarantee the right to be free from sex discrimination in public accommodations, among other things.

.@omargp: Speaking to the health care rule announced on Friday, this creates a huge barrier.

The Trump admin/HHS has a bit of pie on their face. They said they would NOT wait for guidance from this decision. Whoops!

This puts wind in the sails of our fight against that rule.

.@DianaKFlynn: While it is true that SCOTUS has increasingly recognized the dignity of LGB people, this is notably the first time they have decided a transgender case on the merits, and publicly upheld the rights and dignity of transgender people. #DecisionDay

Congratulations to the entire #LGBTQ community. Take some time today to celebrate!

And if you want to help fund our invigorated fight against the health care rule announced Friday, drop us a couple bucks here: lambdalegal.org/donate