{"id":119359,"date":"2025-05-16T14:02:39","date_gmt":"2025-05-16T22:02:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/05\/16\/wingnut-texas-judge-overrules-scotus-trans-decision-because-yolo\/"},"modified":"2025-05-16T14:02:39","modified_gmt":"2025-05-16T22:02:39","slug":"wingnut-texas-judge-overrules-scotus-trans-decision-because-yolo","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/05\/16\/wingnut-texas-judge-overrules-scotus-trans-decision-because-yolo\/","title":{"rendered":"Wingnut Texas Judge Overrules SCOTUS Trans Decision Because YOLO"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk is at it again. <\/p>\n

Mitch McConnell and Leonard Leo parked the conservative wingnut in a single-judge district in Amarillo for the express purpose of allowing conservatives to order up injunctions blocking President Biden\u2019s executive orders. That was back when nationwide injunctions were good, of course. But now he\u2019s got a new task: turning President Trump\u2019s executive orders into law.<\/p>\n

Yesterday he purported<\/a> to operationalize Trump\u2019s anti-trans executive orders by overturning Bostock v. Clayton County<\/a><\/em>, the 2020 Supreme Court case ruling that it was illegal to discriminate against gay or trans people in the workplace under Title VII. <\/p>\n

Judge Kacsmaryk didn\u2019t say he was overturning Bostock<\/em>, which would be a weird thing for a district court judge to do. Instead he differentiated the case brought by Texas and the Heritage foundation challenging EEOC protections for trans employees thusly:<\/p>\n

\n

The Guidance states that it does not attempt to \u201cimpose new legal obligations on employers with respect to any aspect of workplace harassment law, including gender identity discrimination.\u201d But the Guidance
then admits that Bostock is its basis for all gender identity-related employment rules. And although it admits that Bostock addressed only the termination of transgender or homosexual persons, it boldly states that \u201cthe EEOC must sometimes take a position on whether an alleged type of conduct violates Title VII even in the absence of binding Supreme Court precedent.\u201d Thus, it finds that allowing a transgender or homosexual employee to be \u201charassed or otherwise discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment based on those same characteristics\u201d would be \u201cinconsistent\u201d with Bostock\u2019s holding and would create \u201ctextually unsupported asymmetry.\u201d Accordingly\u2014although the Enforcement Guidance explicitly recognizes that no \u201cbinding Supreme Court precedent\u201d underpins its actions\u2014it determines that Bostock should be extended to bar \u201charassment\u201d based on gender identity. Thus, the Enforcement Guidance itself acknowledges that it more than \u201csummarizes\u201d Title VII case law. Instead, it fundamentally expands Title VII to include harassment based on gender identity.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

That\u2019s right. He says Bostock<\/em> only made it illegal to fire<\/em> someone for being trans. The Court didn\u2019t say employers had to use appropriate pronouns or let trans people pee at work or wear clothes corresponding to their gender identity.<\/p>\n

The technical term for that is bullshit. <\/p>\n

In the 6-3 opinion, Justice Gorsuch wrote \u201can employer who intentionally treats a person worse because of sex\u2014such as by firing the person for actions or attributes it would tolerate in an individual of another sex\u2014discriminates against that person in violation of Title VII.\u201d The opinion makes it very clear that it bars discrimination, not just termination: \u201cFor an employer to discriminate against employees for being homosexual or transgender, the employer must intentionally discriminate against individual men and women in part because of sex.\u201d <\/p>\n

And even though Bostock<\/em> clearly states that \u201csex is necessarily a but-for cause when an employer discriminates against homosexual or transgender employees,\u201d Kacsmaryk insists that there is no precedent for the EEOC\u2019s \u201cmetastasized definition of \u2018sex.’\u201d<\/p>\n

The trial judge purported to invalidate EEOC guidance mandating that employers not discriminate against trans employees \u2014 although presumably they still can\u2019t be fired. And since the president decreed that discrimination is now the law of the land, the EEOC and DOJ have indicated they will not appeal. The administration will make an exception to the NO MORE NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS rule, just this once.<\/p>\n

Stare decisis FTW.<\/p>\n

State of Texas\u00a0v.\u00a0<\/em>Equal Employment Opportunity Commission<\/a> [Docket via Court Listener]<\/p>\n

\n

Liz Dye<\/a>\u00a0lives in Baltimore where she produces the Law and Chaos\u00a0substack<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0podcast<\/a>.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The post Wingnut Texas Judge Overrules SCOTUS Trans Decision Because YOLO<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk is at it again. <\/p>\n

Mitch McConnell and Leonard Leo parked the conservative wingnut in a single-judge district in Amarillo for the express purpose of allowing conservatives to order up injunctions blocking President Biden\u2019s executive orders. That was back when nationwide injunctions were good, of course. But now he\u2019s got a new task: turning President Trump\u2019s executive orders into law.<\/p>\n

Yesterday he purported<\/a> to operationalize Trump\u2019s anti-trans executive orders by overturning Bostock v. Clayton County<\/a><\/em>, the 2020 Supreme Court case ruling that it was illegal to discriminate against gay or trans people in the workplace under Title VII. <\/p>\n

Judge Kacsmaryk didn\u2019t say he was overturning Bostock<\/em>, which would be a weird thing for a district court judge to do. Instead he differentiated the case brought by Texas and the Heritage foundation challenging EEOC protections for trans employees thusly:<\/p>\n

\n

The Guidance states that it does not attempt to \u201cimpose new legal obligations on employers with respect to any aspect of workplace harassment law, including gender identity discrimination.\u201d But the Guidance
then admits that Bostock is its basis for all gender identity-related employment rules. And although it admits that Bostock addressed only the termination of transgender or homosexual persons, it boldly states that \u201cthe EEOC must sometimes take a position on whether an alleged type of conduct violates Title VII even in the absence of binding Supreme Court precedent.\u201d Thus, it finds that allowing a transgender or homosexual employee to be \u201charassed or otherwise discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment based on those same characteristics\u201d would be \u201cinconsistent\u201d with Bostock\u2019s holding and would create \u201ctextually unsupported asymmetry.\u201d Accordingly\u2014although the Enforcement Guidance explicitly recognizes that no \u201cbinding Supreme Court precedent\u201d underpins its actions\u2014it determines that Bostock should be extended to bar \u201charassment\u201d based on gender identity. Thus, the Enforcement Guidance itself acknowledges that it more than \u201csummarizes\u201d Title VII case law. Instead, it fundamentally expands Title VII to include harassment based on gender identity.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

That\u2019s right. He says Bostock<\/em> only made it illegal to fire<\/em> someone for being trans. The Court didn\u2019t say employers had to use appropriate pronouns or let trans people pee at work or wear clothes corresponding to their gender identity.<\/p>\n

The technical term for that is bullshit. <\/p>\n

In the 6-3 opinion, Justice Gorsuch wrote \u201can employer who intentionally treats a person worse because of sex\u2014such as by firing the person for actions or attributes it would tolerate in an individual of another sex\u2014discriminates against that person in violation of Title VII.\u201d The opinion makes it very clear that it bars discrimination, not just termination: \u201cFor an employer to discriminate against employees for being homosexual or transgender, the employer must intentionally discriminate against individual men and women in part because of sex.\u201d <\/p>\n

And even though Bostock<\/em> clearly states that \u201csex is necessarily a but-for cause when an employer discriminates against homosexual or transgender employees,\u201d Kacsmaryk insists that there is no precedent for the EEOC\u2019s \u201cmetastasized definition of \u2018sex.’\u201d<\/p>\n

The trial judge purported to invalidate EEOC guidance mandating that employers not discriminate against trans employees \u2014 although presumably they still can\u2019t be fired. And since the president decreed that discrimination is now the law of the land, the EEOC and DOJ have indicated they will not appeal. The administration will make an exception to the NO MORE NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS rule, just this once.<\/p>\n

Stare decisis FTW.<\/p>\n

State of Texas\u00a0v.\u00a0<\/em>Equal Employment Opportunity Commission<\/a> [Docket via Court Listener]<\/p>\n

\n

Liz Dye<\/a>\u00a0lives in Baltimore where she produces the Law and Chaos\u00a0substack<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0podcast<\/a>.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk is at it again. Mitch McConnell and Leonard Leo parked the conservative wingnut in a single-judge district in Amarillo for the express purpose of allowing conservatives to order up injunctions blocking President Biden\u2019s executive orders. That was back when nationwide injunctions were good, of course. But now he\u2019s got a new task: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":119343,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-119359","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/stupid-confused-shrug-man-with-beard-idiot-moron-dunce-hipster-620x414-B51kCl.jpeg?fit=620%2C414&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/119359","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=119359"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/119359\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/119343"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=119359"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=119359"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=119359"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}