Clarence Thomas Knocks Landmark Supreme Court LGBTQ+ Ruling—'Incorrect'

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas criticized a landmark LGBTQ+ rights case as being decided based on "incorrect" reasoning in a new ruling issued on Wednesday.
Newsweek reached out to the court for comment via its public information office email on Wednesday.
Why It Matters
The Supreme Court has considerable authority to interpret the laws of the United States, and its recent rulings had extensive impact on key policies around LGBTQ+ rights. Thomas, viewed as among the court's most conservative justices, has been critical of these rulings, such as in Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the court ruled the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination against employees on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
What To Know
The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued their latest case on LGBTQ+ rights in U.S. v. Skrmetti, upholding a Tennessee law that bars gender-affirming care for transgender youth.
Plaintiffs in the case argued the law benefits the Equal Protection Clause because it prohibits transgender minors from receiving hormones based on their biological sex; a transgender boy would not be able to receive testosterone, but the law does not apply to cisgender boys, those who identify with their birth gender.
The court wrote in the majority opinion that the reasoning from the Bostock case does not back up their view. Thomas, in a concurring opinion, went further and took aim at the court's ruling in the 2020 Bostock ruling.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas sits during a group photo of the jurists on April 23, 2021, in Washington, D.C.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas sits during a group photo of the jurists on April 23, 2021, in Washington, D.C.
Erin Schaff-Pool/Getty Images
Thomas wrote that he believes the "Bostock majority's logic 'fails on its own terms.'"
"While the majority concludes that SB1 does not discriminate based on sex, even under Bostock's incorrect reasoning, I would make clear that, in constitutional challenges, courts need not engage Bostock at all," he wrote.
Thomas dissented from the majority in the original Bostock ruling, joining an opinion penned by Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote, "There is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation. The document that the Court releases is in the form of a judicial opinion interpreting a statute, but that is deceptive."
Alito wrote at the time that while a bill extending those protections passed the House of Representatives, it had stalled in the Senate.
"Title VII's prohibition of discrimination because of 'sex; still means what it has always meant. But the Court is not deterred by these constitutional niceties. Usurping the constitutional authority of the other branches, the Court has essentially taken H.R. 5's provision on employment discrimination and issued it under the guise of statutory interpretation," the dissent reads.
Thomas has also expressed interest in revisiting the court's 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which said same-sex couples have marriage rights under the Equal Protection Clause.
He wrote in June 2022—after the High Court ruled to overturn Roe v. Wade—the case that guaranteed reproductive rights across the country—that he wanted to see the court revisit Obergefell.
"We have a duty to 'correct the error' established in those precedents," Thomas wrote.
What People Are Saying
In the Skrmetti ruling, the High Court wrote: "We have not yet considered whether Bostock's reasoning reaches beyond the Title VII context, and we need not do so here. For reasons we have already explained, changing a minor's sex or transgender status does not alter the application of SB1."
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in Wednesday's ruling: "Yet the majority refuses to call a spade a spade. Instead, it obfuscates a sex classification that is plain on the face of this statute, all to avoid the mere possibility that a different court could strike down SB1, or categorical healthcare bans like it."
What Happens Next
It is unclear if the Supreme Court will revisit the precedents set in the 2015 Obergefell ruling.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Hill

41 minutes ago

• The Hill

Supreme Court ruling scrambles battle for transgender care

The Supreme Court on Wednesday delivered a substantial blow to transgender-rights advocates in upholding a 2023 Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors, a decision that could have far-reaching consequences for the future of transgender health in the U.S. but whose impact won't be felt right away. 'The immediate outcome is that it doesn't change anything,' said Kellan Baker, executive director of the Institute for Health Research and Policy at Whitman-Walker, a Washington-based nonprofit. 'It doesn't affect the availability or legality of care in states that do not have bans, and it simply says that states that have decided to ban this care can do so if they survive other challenges.' Twenty-seven Republican-led states since 2021 have adopted laws that ban transition-related care, including puberty blockers, hormone therapy and rare surgeries for minors. Laws passed in Arizona and New Hampshire — the first Northeastern state to have restricted gender dysphoria treatments for youth — only prohibit minors from accessing surgeries, a provision that was not at issue before the Supreme Court. In a 6-3 decision, the high court upheld a lower court ruling that found Tennessee's restrictions do not violate the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. The state's law, which allows cisgender children and teens to access medications that it bans for trans minors, makes distinctions based on age and diagnosis, the courts ruled, rather than sex and transgender status. Three Tennessee families, a doctor and the Biden administration, along with attorneys at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Lambda Legal, argued the measure amounts to illegal sex discrimination, warranting heightened review. 'Having concluded it does not,' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority on Wednesday, 'we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.' At least 10 legal challenges to state laws prohibiting health professionals from administering gender-affirming care to minors argue the restrictions discriminate based on sex in violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court's ruling Wednesday could potentially weaken, in some cases, that line of attack, but it is not the only approach opponents of the laws have pursued. More than a dozen other lawsuits, including ones arguing equal protection under the U.S. Constitution, claim bans on transition-related health care for minors violate the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, federal disability law or provisions of a state's constitution. In May, a federal judge struck Montana's ban on gender-affirming care for youth on grounds it violated privacy, equal protection and free speech rights guaranteed by its constitution. 'This ruling allows challenges to other state bans to continue,' said Baker, of Whitman-Walker, 'and they will.' Karen Loewy, senior counsel and director of Lambda Legal's constitutional law practice, told reporters on a Zoom call following Wednesday's ruling that the civil rights organization and others challenging state bans on gender-affirming care have other options at their disposal. 'The Supreme Court did not endorse the entirety of the lower court's ruling; it did not mandate or even greenlight other bans on gender-affirming medical care, even for young people, or other forms of discrimination,' she said. 'It really is about how it viewed Tennessee's in this specific way, and left us plenty of tools to fight other bans on health care and other discriminatory actions that target transgender people, including other equal protection arguments about transgender status discrimination, about the animus-based targeting of trans people.' Loewy added that the court's ruling also left the door open to arguments based on state and federal sex discrimination statutes and parental rights, which the justices did not address Wednesday. Nearly all of the cases brought against youth gender-affirming care bans argue those laws infringe on the rights of parents to make medical decisions on behalf of their children. 'As a parent, I know my child better than any government official ever will,' Samantha Williams, the mother of L.W., a transgender teenager who was at the center of the case before the Supreme Court, wrote in a New York Times op-ed after Wednesday's ruling. The Supreme Court's determination that Tennessee's law does not discriminate based on sex also raises questions about how opponents of transition-related health care for minors will use the ruling to inform their own legal strategies. In Arkansas, the ACLU successfully argued in 2023 that the first-in-the-nation ban on gender-affirming care for minors violated the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, as well as its Due Process Clause and the First Amendment's protections of free speech. 'We'll have to see, but it's possible that that ban could stand because the court made that decision on equal protection, as well as on other grounds,' said Lindsey Dawson, director for LGBTQ health policy at KFF, a nonprofit health policy research, polling and news organization. 'This is likely to be an area that's going to face continued litigation and is not settled at this point in time.' In a statement Wednesday, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin (R) said he is 'preparing an official notification' for an appeals court detailing the implications of Wednesday's Supreme Court decision on the state's ban, which the Legislature passed — and former Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson initially vetoed — in 2021. 'Because our law is similar to Tennessee's law, today's decision has positive implications for our case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit,' he said. Montana and Arkansas are the only states whose bans on gender-affirming care for youth remain blocked by court orders, according to the Movement Advancement Project, a nonprofit group that tracks LGBTQ laws. The Supreme Court's ruling Wednesday also declined, as some court watchers had anticipated, to apply the reasoning of its earlier decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 shields employees from discrimination based on their sex or gender identity. Some lawsuits challenging state bans on care for minors have said the ruling should apply to contexts other than workplace discrimination. Former President Biden's administration similarly sought to use the court's reasoning in Bostock to back new nondiscrimination policies protecting transgender people in health care and sports, arguments largely rejected by conservative political leaders and courts. 'We still don't have a sole understanding of where Bostock might apply outside of Title VII, and it's going to be something that's important to watch,' Dawson said. 'It's certainly something that the Bostock court warned us about,' she said. 'In that decision, the court said, this court is making its ruling and it's quite narrow, but it's going to be for future courts to decide how this applies outside of Title VII. That remains a question mark.'

Boston Globe

42 minutes ago

• Boston Globe

In US court, due process rulings have been word for word

In orders asserting their Advertisement They pointed to language in a landmark 1982 Supreme Court ruling that upheld the rights of undocumented children to a free public education, which reads: 'even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as 'persons' guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment.' US District Judge Indira Talwani, in an order issued April 28, was the first to stress the constitutional rights of immigrants, when she prevented the government from transferring an immigrant to another jurisdiction. The next day, Judge Leo T. Sorokin wrote a nearly identical order, then a dozen other judges adopted that language in orders barring the out-of-state transfer of immigrants who filed habeas petitions. The rulings have provided critical relief for immigrants in Massachusetts at a time when many are immediately being shipped to detention facilities hundreds of miles away or deported without a hearing, according to advocates. Advertisement 'It's been heartening to see,' said attorney Benjamin Tymann, who represents several immigrants who filed habeas petitions. 'These are completely reasonable orders for judges to put in place because all they are saying is, 'OK, let's hit pause' ... and make the government make some showing on the merits of their arrest.'' Immigration lawyers have accused Immigration and Customs Enforcement of moving immigrants across the country to disrupt or delay efforts to challenge their arrests and removal from the United States, and to place them under the jurisdiction of more conservative federal courts. In one case, US District Judge Denise Casper temporarily barred the government from transferring 25-year-old Luis Fernando Olmos Ramirez while she considered his claim that ICE violated his rights when its agents arrested him in Lynn on May 24. Tymann argued there was 'no lawful basis' to arrest Ramirez, who was granted special immigrant juvenile status after coming to the United States from his native El Salvador as an unaccompanied minor in 2015 and has since lived with his father in Lynn. He has no criminal record and has an application pending for a Green card, according to Tymann. In her order, Casper wrote that relocating Ramirez to a facility outside Massachusetts 'will exponentially increase the risks that he will be further deprived of due process and unlawfully removed from the United States to dangerous conditions in El Salvador or elsewhere.' On June 10, Ramirez voluntarily dismissed his petition after an immigration judge released him on bond. But Tymann credits Casper's intervention with paving the way for his release. Advertisement 'Without the no-transfer order, he may have been sent to Texas or somewhere else,' Tymann said. US Attorney Leah Foley, whose office represents the government in habeas petition cases, acknowledged in a statement that the Supreme Court 'has established that all persons in the United States have Constitutional protections, regardless of their immigration status.' She said her office has no authority to tell ICE where to house immigrants in its custody, but immediately forwards the agency the judges' orders barring the out-of-state transfer of immigrants. A spokesperson for ICE did not respond to requests for comment about the habeas petitions and allegations that agents have made unlawful arrests. But the agency has made clear that it has worked to ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons said during a press conference last month that agents were targeting dangerous and violent criminals, but will arrest anyone they encounter who is in the country illegally. And he argued that their rights are not being violated. 'ICE doesn't just scoop people off the street and remove them,' Lyons said. 'Everyone gets due process and that is what the US attorney's office is for. It's what the immigration courts are for.' Some of the petitions before US District Court judges were filed by people who entered the country without permission, then surrendered themselves to immigration officials and had been allowed to remain free as they pursued lawful status. They allege they were arrested without probable cause or due process while driving to work or dropping their children off at school. Advertisement In some cases, petitioners allege they were leaving the Chelmsford immigration court after judges set hearings for a future date, only to be arrested in the hallways by immigration agents and told they were facing expedited removal from the country. 'What we are seeing in this country is just an assault on the rule of law,' said attorney Todd Pomerleau, whose Boston firm, Rubin Pomerleau, filed habeas petitions on behalf of five immigrants in recent weeks. One of Pomerleau's clients, Andre Damasio Ferreira, 40, was born in Brazil, came to the United States nearly 20 years ago, and lives in Everett with his wife, who is battling cancer. Their two children, 13 and 8, are US citizens. Ferreira, who works for a flooring company, was a passenger in a pickup truck being driven by a co-worker on May 30 when they were stopped by armed ICE agents who demanded to see their passports and questioned them about their immigration status, according to Pomerleau. Ferreira was arrested and is being held at the Plymouth County Correctional Facility pending removal proceedings. US District Judge William G. Young issued an order June 5 temporarily blocking Ferreira's transfer out of state, using the same language as his colleagues while stressing Ferreira's constitutional rights. Young wrote that although federal district courts don't generally have jurisdiction to review orders of removal by an immigration court, they do have jurisdiction over violations of the Constitution. The government argued in court filings on June 12 that Ferreira's arrest was lawful and urged Young to dismiss his petition. ICE agents stopped Ferreira because he looked like someone else they were targeting, then discovered he was unlawfully present in the country and had previously been removed in 2005, according to the government. The judge has yet to rule on the case. Advertisement In at least two cases, immigrants were mistakenly transferred — one to Louisiana and the other to Mississippi — in violation of judges' orders, according to court filings. The US attorney's office apologized and the petitioners were brought back to the state. Though judges have issued orders halting transfers by the Trump administration as early as January, they specifically began adopting the language reinforcing immigrants' constitutional rights after the arrest of Tufts PhD student She was arrested by masked ICE agents outside her Somerville apartment in March. By the time her lawyers filed last month, a federal judge in Vermont ordered her released, while he considers her claim that the government violated her free speech and due process rights. 'Now we are seeing a lot more detentions that violate due process rights and that's not an issue that immigration judges are usually able to address,' said Shantanu Chatterjee, a Chelsea attorney who has filed habeas petitions on behalf of several immigrants. He said more immigration lawyers are seeking relief for their clients in federal district courts. The flurry of rulings 'sends a message to everyone that Advertisement Shelley Murphy can be reached at

Newsweek

an hour ago

• Newsweek

Graph Shows US Births Decline Over 50 Years

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Newsweek has created a graph to show how births in the United States have declined over the last 50 years. This has happened for every age group, fluctuating across the decades, rising steadily in the 1980s and 1990s, and declining sharply after 2008, according to the U.N. Population Division. The Context America is one of many countries around the world struggling with falling birth rates. Fertility rates are projected to average 1.6 births per woman over the next three decades, according to the Congressional Budget Office's latest forecast released this year. This number is well below the replacement level of 2.1 births per woman required to maintain a stable population without immigration. The Donald Trump administration has made this issue one of its priorities, the White House exploring giving women a "baby bonus" of $5,000, according to an April New York Times report. The Birth Rate Situation In America Different age groups have been affected differently by the shift in births. While mothers between the ages of 50 and 54 had no babies in 1975, this number gradually increased to more than 100 over the years and was 159 in 2024. Conversely, teen pregnancies have drastically and consistently declined since 1975, when there were 599,926 before this number started to go down in the early 2000s, to 136,376 in 2024. The issue with a lower number of births, taking place while the elderly live longer, means that is that the country is headed for a time when there are more elderly, dependent people than there are working-age people. At the beginning of this year, a report by the McKinsey Global Institute warned that major economies are heading toward a "population collapse" by 2100 because of falling fertility rates. Trump said during a speech in December: "We want more babies, to put it nicely." Many trying to tackle this issue have focused on public health policies and financial plans, often citing the 2008 financial crisis, its effect on housing, inflation and pay as a major contributor to why people delay having children, have fewer of them or to not have them at all. Parental leave, improved childcare services, and financial independence in general are all things advocates call for in the hopes of making it easier for people to have children. Earlier this month, Trump announced a $1,000 tax-deferred investment account for American babies born during his second term. The White House said the so-called "Trump Accounts" will "afford a generation of children the chance to experience the miracle of compounded growth and set them on a course for prosperity from the very beginning." Meanwhile, the United States could make childbirth free for privately insured families, in an effort to tackle declining birth rates. The bipartisan Supporting Healthy Moms and Babies Act, which would designate maternity care as an essential health benefit under the Affordable Care Act, was introduced in the Senate in May. Beth Jarosz, a senior program director of U.S. programs at the Population Reference Bureau, said that "reducing health care costs is important, but may not be enough to move the needle on births." "The cost of childbirth is just one of the many costs of having a child, and people are also reeling from the much bigger costs of child care, housing, and other necessities," she told Newsweek. Culture's Impact On America's Birth Rates However, while financial concerns are generally accepted as a major contributor to declining birth rates, they are not the lone cause. Bell said that even the policies she calls for "are also unlikely to increase the birth rate, as evidence from other countries with much more supportive policies suggest." Norway is considered a global leader in parental leave and child care policies, and the United Nations International Children's Fund (UNICEF) ranks it among the top countries for family-friendly policies. But it, too, is facing a birth rate crisis. The Nordic country offers parents 12 months of shared paid leave for birth and an additional year each afterward. It also made kindergarten (similar to a U.S. day care) a statutory right for all children aged 1 or older in 2008. And yet, Norway's fertility rate has dropped dramatically from 1.98 children per woman in 2009 to 1.44 children per woman in 2024, according to official figures. The rate for 2023 (1.40) was the lowest ever recorded fertility rate in the country. Newsweekspoke to several experts about Norway specifically, who all cited recent culture changes. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty For example, "young adults are more likely to live alone" and "young couples split up more frequently than before," Rannveig Kaldager Hart, a senior researcher at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health's Centre for Fertility and Health, said. American Vice President JD Vance touched on cultural changes when he said in January: "We failed a generation not only by permitting a culture of abortion on demand but also by neglecting to help young parents achieve the ingredients they need to lead a happy and meaningful life. "Our society has failed to recognize the obligation that one generation has to another as a core part of living in a society. So let me say very simply, I want more babies in the United States of America."