06-17-2020, 03:13 PM
Back on topic:
https://fortune.com/2020/06/15/supreme-court-lgbtq-discrimination-ruling-vote-decision-scotus-transgender-health-care-protections-obama-trump-law-gorsuch/
Fortune looked at how the SCOTUS ruling could hinder attempts by the administration to undermine protections for the LGBT community.
The Admin stated: "HHS will enforce Section 1557 by returning to the government’s interpretation of sex discrimination according to the plain meaning of the word ‘sex’ as male or female and as determined by biology,”
The decision hurts the administration's suggestion that they will only view it by the definition used by the government as the courts now view discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation to be forms of sex based discrimination.
There are some other arguments the administration could use, such as religious freedom or by saying these rules are based off of different laws (though very similar laws). If the Courts were to hear a challenge, however, it is hard to see how they would not immediately defer to their recent ruling, especially given the fact that it was a textualist decision and the primary argument given by the administration is based on a textual interpretation.
https://fortune.com/2020/06/15/supreme-court-lgbtq-discrimination-ruling-vote-decision-scotus-transgender-health-care-protections-obama-trump-law-gorsuch/
Fortune looked at how the SCOTUS ruling could hinder attempts by the administration to undermine protections for the LGBT community.
The Admin stated: "HHS will enforce Section 1557 by returning to the government’s interpretation of sex discrimination according to the plain meaning of the word ‘sex’ as male or female and as determined by biology,”
The decision hurts the administration's suggestion that they will only view it by the definition used by the government as the courts now view discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation to be forms of sex based discrimination.
There are some other arguments the administration could use, such as religious freedom or by saying these rules are based off of different laws (though very similar laws). If the Courts were to hear a challenge, however, it is hard to see how they would not immediately defer to their recent ruling, especially given the fact that it was a textualist decision and the primary argument given by the administration is based on a textual interpretation.
![[Image: ulVdgX6.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/ulVdgX6.jpg)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
