Skip to content

Judicial Watch, Inc. is a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, which promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law.

Judicial Watch, Inc. is a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, which promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law.

Because no one
is above the law!

Donate

Press Releases

Judicial Watch Statement on Supreme Court Ruling Regarding Sex Discrimination

(Washington, DC)Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton made the following statement about today’s decision by the United States Supreme Court regarding sex discrimination:

The Supreme Court undermined the rule of law today. In expanding the ban of sex discrimination in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include sexual orientation and gender identity, the court engaged in an abuse of power by legislating from the bench.

There has been a years-long battle by Left to change federal law to bar discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. But Supreme Court today short-circuited the democratic process and rewrote the law without a vote of Congress but by a vote of six unelected judges.

Congress should reaffirm the Constitution and combat this judicial power grab by reaffirming the original meaning of the Civil Rights Act. Only Congress can amend a law, not the Supreme Court.

Today’s radical Supreme Court decision shows that the threat to the rule of law doesn’t only come from leftist rioters in the streets, but also from judicial activists on the bench.

As Justice Alito warns, today’s decision, unless fixed by Congress, could destroy women’s sports, weaken religious freedom and free speech, weaken personal privacy, and cause chaos in schools.

Judicial Watch last year submitted an amicus curiae (friend of court) brief to the court on this issue, detailing how Congress repeatedly rejected efforts to amend the law. Where 71 bills over the course of 45 years attempted to include sexual orientation or gender identity in Title VII’s definition of sex, it is singularly unpersuasive, after all those bills have failed, to argue that these categories were “in there all along.” Any such statute should be passed by Congress, not ordered by the court.

###