Four years ago, the court surprised many on the right when it ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids employers from discriminating against workers based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., said that because the law forbids job discrimination on the basis of sex, it must be read to include discrimination against LGBTQ+ employees.

"An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex," Gorsuch wrote in the case of Bostock vs. Clayton County.

Three conservatives dissented from that opinion, and the court has yet to rule on whether this anti-discrimination principle extends to the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the laws.

That legal question is at the heart of the appeals now before the court. The ACLU, Lambda Legal and the Biden administration argue that a law "targeting transgender individuals for disfavored treatment" is a form of sex discrimination and should be struck down as unconstitutional.

They also raise the issue of parents' rights. The laws in Tennessee, Kentucky and elsewhere should be struck down because they "violate the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the medical care of their children," they told the court.

Samantha Williams and her husband Brian had sued in Nashville on behalf of their daughter who was identified as L.W.

"It's hard to overstate the difference that our daughter's medical treatment has made in her life and our family's life," Samantha Williams said when the appeal went to the Supreme Court. "Before coming out and starting to receive this medical care she struggled to make friends, keep her grades up, or even accept hugs from her family. Now, we have a confident, happy daughter who is free to be herself. I want the Justices to see and understand my daughter and recognize her rights under the Constitution like any other person, and to see that if parents like me don't have the right to determine what's best for our children, then no parent does."

In defense of his state's law, Tennessee's Atty. Gen. Jonathan Skrmetti described it as a measure "to protect children from unproven medical interventions."

He said the number of minors receiving gender-dysphoria diagnoses has "exploded" in recent years, and states have "seen a corresponding surge in unproven and risky medical interventions for these underage patients."

...continued

©2024 Los Angeles Times. Visit at latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.