Want to get this daily news briefing by email? Here’s the sign-up.


WHAT WE’RE WATCHING

SCOTUS SCHISM – Here’s a joke that will kill at your next Zoom happy hour: Why couldn’t the U.S. Supreme Court textualists agree? They weren’t on the same page. As Marcia Coyle reports, yesterday’s landmark SCOTUS decision applying Title VII to protect LGBTQ workers revealed a rift between Justice Neil Gorsuch and his conservative colleagues over the true meaning of textualism. Gorsuch, leading the majority, found that Title VII’s provision barring employers from discriminating “because of … sex” includes discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity—even if the law’s congressional drafters could not have anticipated such an application way back in 1964. But Justices Samuel Alito Jr. and Brett Kavanaugh strongly disagreed, with Alito calling the majority opinion “breathtaking” in its “arrogance” and Kavanaugh arguing that it conflated textualism with literalism.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]