The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling applying the nation’s workplace discrimination law to protect LGBTQ workers revealed intense disagreements within the court’s conservative wing over who properly claimed the mantle of “textualism.”

In a 2015 Harvard Law School lecture, Justice Elena Kagan, underscoring the legacy of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, said, “We are all textualists now.” But in the court’s Monday 6-3 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, textualism clearly meant different things to Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion, and dissenting Justices Samuel Alito Jr. and Brett Kavanaugh.

This content has been archived.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]