New Challenges to the 1964 Civil Rights Act
by Linda Yu
What’s happening:
LGBT rights are once again at stake in the upcoming Supreme Court term. The Supreme Court will hear three cases and decide on whether the anti-discrimination protections of the 1964 Civil Rights Act apply to gender and sexuality.
What’s that?
The 1964 Act banned discrimination and segregation in public facilities, employment, schools, and businesses (think Jim Crow). Title VII of the Act specifically states that this discrimination is banned on the basis of “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” For example, business owners aren’t allowed to refuse service solely based on a customer’s skin color.
Why is it relevant?
Many people agree that this law and others like it protect LGBT Americans from discrimination based on their gender or sexuality. But, some religious conservative groups like Alliance Defending Freedom say that lower court rulings in favor of LGBT rights have “overstepped” and “redefined the word sex.”
This isn’t the first time that LGBT nondiscrimination rights have been brought to the Supreme Court: in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2016), the Court ruled in favor of a baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The majority opinion cited “free exercise of religion.” It’s worth noting that Alliance Defending Freedom was also involved in this case.
Meanwhile, the current presidential administration has taken an anti-LGBT stance: Donald Trump’s administration has banned trans Americans from military service (including non-combatant roles) and more recently proposed rules that would allow homeless shelters to turn away trans people, healthcare providers to refuse life-saving procedures to LGBT patients on religious grounds, and surrogate children of LGBT couples to be denied birthright citizenship (among many other policies, proposals, and statements). Donald Trump has also appointed two justices to the Supreme Court: Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, whom many perceive as supportive of his policies.
What’s at stake:
Next term, the Supreme Court will hear three cases: two having to do with sexuality (the two will be consolidated), and one about gender. The Court is expected to expand on the scope of its 2016 ruling. These upcoming cases will likely have a big impact on LGBT rights in the US as a whole. In the best case scenario, the rulings could improve the lives of millions of LGBT Americans by eliminating discriminatory barriers to work, housing, medical care, and other everyday needs. In the worst case scenario, the Court could explicitly exclude LGBT Americans from the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and could lead to millions losing access to basic services and opportunities.
Sources:
“ADF Asks US Supreme Court to Weigh in on Whether EEOC and Court Can Redefine 'Sex' without Congress.” Alliance Defending Freedom Media, www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/10589.
“Donald Trump.” GLAAD, 22 May 2019, www.glaad.org/tap/donald-trump.
Liptak, Adam. “Supreme Court to Decide Whether Landmark Civil Rights Law Applies to Gay and Transgender Workers.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 22 Apr. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/04/22/us/politics/supreme-court-gay-transgender-employees.html.
“Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.” Supremecourt.gov, Oct. 2017, www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf.
Mervosh, Sarah. “Both Parents Are American. The U.S. Says Their Baby Isn't.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 21 May 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/05/21/us/gay-couple-children-citizenship.html.
“The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.” National Archives and Records Administration, National Archives and Records Administration, www.archives.gov/education/lessons/civil-rights-act.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm.
https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/civil-rights-act
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm
http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/10589
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf
https://www.glaad.org/tap/donald-trump
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/21/us/gay-couple-children-citizenship.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/22/us/politics/supreme-court-gay-transgender-employees.html