MELISSA, STAND BY, AS WELL.
I WANT TO BRING IN OUR JUSTICE
CORRESPONDENT, PETE WILLIAMS.
PETE, WALK US THROUGH, FIRST OF
ALL, WHAT STANDS OUT TO YOU
ABOUT THIS RULING, AND HOW DID
WE GET TO THIS POINT?
WERE THERE THREE CASES, IS THAT
RIGHT?
>> ACTUALLY, SORT OF TWO PLUS
ONE.
BUT THEY WERE ALL IN ONE BIG
DECISION ON SAME-SEX
DISCRIMINATION AND TRANSGENDER
DISCRIMINATION.
SO WITH A STANDS OUT TO ME,
NUMBER ONE, THE DECISION FROM
THIS NEWLY CONSERVATIVE SUPREME
COURT.
I THINK MANY PEOPLE THOUGHT THIS
MIGHT BE WHERE THE COURT WOULD
GO IF ANTHONY KENNEDY WAS STILL
A MEMBER, WHO HAD WRITTEN ALL
THE COURT’S SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
IN THIS AREA.
BUT HE’S GONE, REPLACED BY THE
MORE CONSERVATIVE BRETT
KAVANAUGH.
NOW, IN FACT, YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU
HAVE HERE IS KAVANAUGH JOINING
THE DISSENTERS TODAY.
BUT NEIL GORSUCH, WHO REPLACED
ANTONIN SOCALIA, WRITING THE
MAJORITY OPINION.
I CAN’T IMAGINE SCALIA WOULD
HAVE WRITTEN THE OPINION TODAY,
BUT GORSUCH DID.
THEN YOU HAVE THE SIX-VOTE
MAJORITY.
IT IS NOT JUST A 5-4 SQUEAKER
DECISION.
IT IS A 6-3 RULING.
AS I’M SURE YOU’VE BEEN
DISCUSSING, THE CORE OF THE
DECISION IS THIS, AND THE CORE
OF THE QUESTION WAS THIS, IN
1964, WHEN CONGRESS PASSED THE
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, THE MOST
IMPORTANT CIVIL RIGHTS
LEGISLATION IN AMERICAN HISTORY,
IT’S INDISPUTABLY TRUE THAT IT
WAS NOT ON THE MINDS OF ANYBODY
IN CONGRESS TO THINK ABOUT
SAME-SEX DISCRIMINATION OR
TRANSGENDER DISCRIMINATION.
BUT WHAT NEIL GORSUCH WROTE
TODAY IS, THAT DOESN’T MATTER.
IT’S NOT WHAT WAS IN THE MINDS
OF CONGRESS THAT COUNTS.
IT’S THE WORDS OF THE LAW THAT
COUNT.
HE SAID, FIRING SOMEONE ON THE
BASIS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS A
FORM OF SEX DISCRIMINATION.
IT IS A VICTORY FOR GERALD, A
MAN FROM ATLANTA WORKING FOR THE
COUNTY AND WAS FIRED WHEN THE
COUNTY FOUND OUT HE WAS ON A GAY
SOFTBALL TEAM.
HE SUED AND SAID, YOU CAN’T FIRE
ME URNNDER THE LAW.
THE COURT OF APPEALS SAID,
SORRY, YOU CAN’T SUE UNDER THIS
LAW.
DOESN’T COVER SEXUAL
ORIENTATION.
THAT DECISION THE SUPREME COURT
REVERSED TODAY.
IT IS A VICTORY FOR AMY STEVENS,
WHO WORKED FOR A FUNERAL HOME IN
MICHIGAN.
TOLD HER EMPLOYER THAT HER
GENDER IDENTITY WAS FEMALE, AND
SHE WAS GOING TO BE DRESSING AS
A FEMALE.
SHE WAS FIRED.
SHE SUED AND WON.
IT WAS THE FUNERAL HOME THAT
BROUGHT THE CASE TO THE SUPREME
COURT.
TODAY, THE SUPREME COURT UPHELD
THE LOWER COURT RULING.
AMY STEVENS DIED A COUPLE OF
WEEKS AGO FROM A LONGSTANDING
KIDNEY DISEASE.
SHE DID NOT LIVE TO SEE THIS
DAY, BUT SHE REALIZED THAT SHE
WAS PROBABLY GOING TO BE MAKING
HISTORY.
SO THAT’S WHAT STANDS OUT TO ME.
IT WAS REALLY A PRETTY SIMPLE
QUESTION.
WHEN THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT SAID
YOU CAN’T FIRE SOMEBODY ON THE
BASIS OF RACE, SEX, NATIONAL
ORIGIN, SO FORTH, DID THAT COVER
SEX DISCRIMINATION?
TODAY, THE SUPREME COURT SAID,
RESOLVING THE SPLIT AMONG THE
LOWER COURTS, THE ANSWER IS YES.
>> AND SO IT WAS.
PETE, AN ODD QUESTION.
I GUESS MAYBE A BIT OF A PROCESS
QUESTION.
WHEN THE JUSTICES DECIDE WHO
WRITES THE MAJORITY OPINION AND
MINORITY OPINION, HOW DO THEY
MAKE THAT DECISION?
HOW DID WE GET THE MAJORITY
OPINION FROM GORSUCH TODAY?
>> YEAH.
WELL, I’M CHUCKLING BECAUSE I
THINK IT WAS CRAFTY, THAT THIS
DECISION WAS MADE.
SO THE WAY IT WORKS IS THIS,
SHORTLY AFTER THE CASE IS
ARGUED, THE COURT TAKES ITS
FIRST VOTE.
THE SENIOR JUSTICE IN THE
MAJORITY DECIDES WHO WILL WRITE
THE MAJORITY OPINION.
NOW, WE KNOW THE SENIOR JUSTICE
IN THE MAJORITY, AT LEAST WE
THINK IT WAS, WAS JOHN ROBERTS,
THE CHIEF JUSTICE.
HE COULD HAVE WRITTEN THIS
DECISION HIMSELF.
BUT, CLEARLY, HE DECIDED TO GIVE
IT TO NEIL GORSUCH.
I THINK THAT IS A VERY
INTERESTING DECISION THAT HE
MADE.
BECAUSE IT SORT OF REINFORCES
THIS, IF YOU WILL, TO USE THIS
TERM USED IN LEGAL CIRCLES, THIS
TEXTUAL APPROACH TO DECIDING
CASES.
NEIL GORSUCH HAS A LONG HISTORY
HERE IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF
APPEALS IN THE TENTH CIRCUIT OUT
IN THE WEST, IN COLORADO WHERE
HE LIVED, AS ONE OF THE SORT OF
CHIEF TEXTUALISTS AMONG THE
CONSERVATIVE MEMBERS OF THE
JUDICIARY.
THAT’S THE BASIS ON WHICH HE
