Accessibility Tools

Skip to main content

The Latest      —

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.
    end of words, pavement
    The Trump Administration has acted to terminate TPS status for several countries.  Of course, litigation has followed each notice of termin…
    we are hiring sign
    The Economist magazine reports that job interviews are “the worst way to select people, except for all the others.”  One of the more encour…
    fighting rams
    Of primary importance is that the best avoidance is to recognize the early warning signs.  In other words, at the beginning of a confrontat…
    shutdown, washington
    A good amount of publicity has come out recently about two major closings that employers blame on their unions.  In the most recent, at the…
    gavel
    In December of 2025, an Oregon federal judge refused Union Pacific’s effort to set aside a $27 million verdict in a suit from the worker al…
    hello
    Discrimination rules applicable to national origin is a priority for the current chairperson of  the Equal Employment Opportunity Commissio…