Accessibility Tools

Skip to main content

Supreme Court Ruling Limits Transgender Rights

Written on .

There have been several recent developments concerning transgender rights.  Most interpret the Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, as including protection for sexual orientation and sexual identity under the prohibitions of “sex discrimination” under the nation’s employment laws.  However, the Bostock ruling expressly stated that it did not resolve all issues such as those associated with locker rooms and bathrooms.  

On May 15, 2025, the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Texas struck down portions of the EEOC’s 2024 Guidance pertaining to sexual orientation and gender identity under Title VII, which prevented the use of the vacated portions of the 2024 Guidance across the country.  State of Texas v. EEOC, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division.

More recently, on June 18, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that a public employee health plan’s blanket coverage exclusion for gender dysphoria treatments did not violate the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.  U.S. v. Skrmetti, No. 23-477.  Justice Roberts writing for the 6-3 majority stated that there were sincere concerns about these issues, but the Constitution does not resolve these disagreements and the task is best left to the legislature or Congress.  The High Court had previously issued an emergency order allowing the administration to implement its ban on transgender individuals serving in the military.  The result is that the future of gender treatments will be dependent on each state legislature, much like the abortion issue.  The rationale of the opinion was that the Tennessee law, while it referenced sex, did not actually discriminate on the basis of sex.  Instead, it focused on two distinctions:  The age of the patient and the medical use of treatment such as puberty blockers.

The EEOC under the current administration recently halted work on transgender worker discrimination charges.  However, on July 1, 2025, the agency’s Director of the Office of Field Programs announced that the EEOC was “in the clear to continue processing” charges that “falls squarely under” the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bostock ruling.  The EEOC announcement indicated that the agency would process transgender charges applicable to employment issues such as hiring, discharge or promotion. 

    This article is part of our August 2025 Newsletter. 

    View the newsletter online

    Download the newsletter as a PDF

    Get Email Updates

    Receive newsletters and alerts directly in your email inbox. Sign up below.
    ai, human reach out
    A January 20, 2026, class action filed against Eightfold AI, Inc. in California is sending shockwaves through the employer and AI community…
    danger sign, skull
    A second “bombshell” affecting HR pertaining to AI is a federal court ruling in New York, that a defendant’s use of AI in researching and p…
    CHAT GPT
    Soon after the deciding of the above-discussed case on February 17, 2026, in U.S. v. Heppner, a criminal case in the District Court for the…
    avoid, wave away
    There are no easy answers to the above question, but some general observations will nevertheless be made.  First, the New York district cou…
    ai visualization
    Perhaps the starting point is to look at the type of AI platforms generally available.  At a recent conference about AI use for HR, speaker…
    june 2026 legal immigration webinar promo graphic
    The webinar will cover how to deal with a worksite enforcement action and various types of immigration enforcement activities. The webinar…