Now-DoJ Karlan Makes It Official: Sex Means Whatever

When Vanita Gupta, then the acting head of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, created her memo of whole cloth because it was a policy that she wanted and liked, it was much the same as Title IX’s Dear Colleague Letter. It was dangerous, baseless and, ultimately, a bureaucratic stretch of power for which there was no basis in law. It earned Gupta a place in Biden’s White House.

The difference then was that Congress never said so. The Supreme Court never said so. Nobody but Gupta said so, and yet there was Gupta, on behalf of the DoJ, threatening a state to do as she commanded upon pain of losing federal funding, because she cared nothing about abusing power to accomplish what she wanted done. And for those devoid of principle, but in favor of the outcome, she was a hero. After all, as long as one favors an outcome, what different does it make how wrong the means to achieve it?

But that was then, and now Pam Karlan heads the Civil Rights Division. And unlike the bureaucratic usurper Gupta, Karlan comes by it a little more honestly.

Several federal agencies have recently contacted the Civil Rights Division with questions regarding the application of the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended
(20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.) (Title IX), particularly in light of Executive Order 13988, Preventing
and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation, 86 Fed.
Reg. 7023 (Jan. 25, 2021).

When Biden signed the EO in the midst of a flurry of policy shifts that created the appearance of open-mindedness while signaling exactly where his government was going, there was little doubt that this was soon to come. And now it’s here.

Executive Order 13988 sets out the Administration’s policy that “[a]ll persons should receive equal treatment under the law, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation.” Citing the Supreme Court’s holding in Bostock that the prohibition on discrimination “because of . . . sex” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (Title VII), covers  discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation, the Executive Order explains that Bostock’s reasoning applies with equal force to other laws that prohibit sex discrimination “so long as the laws do not contain sufficient indications to the contrary.” The Executive Order directs agencies to review other laws that prohibit sex discrimination, including Title IX, to determine whether they prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation. We conclude that Title IX does.

Karlan knows Bostock because Karlan argued Bostock and, to her credit, Karlan won Bostock.

Karlan’s argument did not rely on the parade of horribles for gays, whether as employees or in society at large, but in the old school approach to sex discrimination, sticking with the word as written, even as intended, and applying it to a straightforward fact pattern. If it’s fine for a woman to do something, then it can’t be disadvantageous for a man to do the same thing.

It was, as noted at the time, a brilliant argument, avoiding the losing battle that the word “sex” in Title VII meant something entirely different than was understood at the time, and has since been reinvented by the conflation of the old man/woman thing with a string of initials and 36 flavors. And employing some florid language, Justice Gorsuch wrote for the Court.

We agree that homosexuality and transgender status are distinct concepts from sex. But, as we’ve seen, discrimination based on homosexuality or transgender status necessarily entails discrimination based on sex; the first cannot happen without the second.

On the one hand, it explicitly says that the word “sex” in Title VII is distinct from homosexuality and transgender status. On the other hand, the significance of this distinction is immediately undermined by saying “the first cannot happen without the second.” As if this wasn’t sufficiently confusing, Gorsuch went on to make another distinction.

What are these consequences anyway? The employers worry that our decision will sweep beyond Title VII to other federal or state laws that prohibit sex discrimination. And, under Title VII itself, they say sex-segregated bathrooms, locker rooms, and dress codes will prove unsustainable after our decision today. But none of these other laws are before us; we have not had the benefit of adversarial testing about the meaning of their terms, and we do not prejudge any such question today. Under Title VII, too, we do not purport to address bathrooms, locker rooms, or anything else of the kind. The only question before us is whether an employer who fires someone simply for being homosexual or transgender has discharged or otherwise discriminated against that individual “because of such individual’s sex.”

In other words, the Court expressly stated that its holding in Bostock was limited to Title VII, employment discrimination law, and not to be generally extrapolated to other laws that similarly use the word “sex” as part of the list of bases upon which discrimination is prohibited. Like, oh, Title IX, discrimination in education.

The Supreme Court didn’t exactly say “no,” but then it clearly said it wasn’t yet saying “yes.” That didn’t stop Karlan from rationalizing it away.

Title IX’s “on the basis of sex” language is sufficiently similar to “because of” sex under Title VII as to be considered interchangeable. In Bostock itself, the Supreme Court described Title VII’s language that way: “[I]n Title VII, Congress outlawed discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

To be fair, her rhetorical argument is strong, as Gorsuch’s Bostock sophistry opened itself to exactly this reading, as should have been obvious at the time. And indeed, pretty much every mention of Bostock since misstates the holding as prohibiting discrimination against gay and transgender people despite Gorsuch’s pains to say that without actually saying it.

But then, Karlan knows Bostock, and must be well aware that the Court expressly distinguished Title IX from its Title VII ruling. Not that she plans to let that stop her from pulling her own Gupta, or worse, Lhamon. Then again, if Congress didn’t want this to be the outcome, it could have written a law in 1964 that would anticipate the wholesale redefinition of “sex” more than 50 years later and specifically precluded it.

10 thoughts on “Now-DoJ Karlan Makes It Official: Sex Means Whatever

  1. B. McLeod

    It’s payoff time for the splinter groups. Everybody in the Big Tent gets something for their support of Grandpa Blinky.

    Reply
  2. Steve White

    It would be interesting to put Justice Gorsuch’s reasoning into an LSAT Logic question and see how many get it “right” . Was the US military, in all the time homosexuality was forbidden, discriminating on the basis of sex? Against which sex? Men, the only sex allowed in the top ranks? I realize I am not adding anything which is not obvious, but as a layman, what is the point of having laws with words which are supposed to have meanings, if our top court just redefines them as they like?

    Reply
    1. SHG Post author

      Some say Gorsuch’s “textualism” rationale might have stretched the limits too far. Others argue that a good textualist doesn’t care what Congress understood sex to mean in 1964, since congressional intent is irrelevant. Go figure.

      Reply
      1. B. McLeod

        It looks like Gorsuch also didn’t care about where the decision would go. In the era of pen-and-phone, sticking some statement in the opinion to narrow its scope was obviously destined to be ignored.

        Reply
  3. DaveL

    One thing that Bostock doesn’t do is endorse a central tenet of trans activism – the idea that non-discrimination against trans persons necessarily entails treating those persons as having their selected sex, not their sex at birth, regardless of current transition status. Nothing about Bostock suggests that it is discriminatory on the basis of sex to require, for instance, a biological male to use male restrooms.

    Somehow, I don’t expect a Biden DOJ to restrict itself to the contours of that ruling.

    Reply
    1. SHG Post author

      Title VII specifically exempts bathroom facilities, lest there be any confusion at the time that separate facilities for men and women be deemed discriminatory. This detail might have informed, on a textual basis, the meaning of sex in the law. Alas, it doesn’t seem to have played any role at all.

      Reply
    2. B. McLeod

      The EEOC under Obama imposed several consent decrees that were designed to have employers require their workers to use pronouns of choice and recognize co-workers as having their selected sex (even if it changed daily). We can expect that to be revived under the Biden Administration, and extended to campuses via other federal departments.

      Reply
  4. David R

    In 1964 it was S.O.P for Doctors to sexually mutilate children who were born with both male and female sexual organs, usually by chopping off the penis. This still happens today and has only started to be condemned in the last 10 years. There’s an estimated 200,000 people living in the United States that were born both male and female. In addition there’s about 3 million born Intersex, with “anomalous physical sexual characteristics”. This is most definitely not a black and white, one or the other topic. Sexuality is a spectrum, with most cis gender but with a lot more variation than the laws and the bureaucracy allows for.

    Reply
    1. SHG Post author

      There’s always somebody who feels compelled to bring up intersex babies, as if this hasn’t been beaten to death a few million times already. Yes, there are physical anomalies, just as there are children born with six fingers on one hand, and yet five fingers remains the standard.

      That said, this isn’t remotely relevant to the post, so save this infantile crap for the insipid children who give a shit.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are subject to editing or deletion if I deem them inappropriate for any reason or no reason. Hyperlinks are not permitted in comments and will be deleted. References to Nazis/Hitler will not be tolerated. I allow anonymous comments, but will not tolerate attacks unless you use your real name. Anyone using the phrase "ad hominem" incorrectly will be ridiculed. If you use ALL CAPS for emphasis, I will assume you wear a tin foil hat and treat you accordingly. I expect civility from you, but that does not mean I will respond in kind. This is my home and I make the rules. If you don't like my rules, then don't comment. Spam is absolutely prohibited, and you will be permanently banned.