Lawyer For Plaintiffs In Landmark SCOTUS Case On Gay Rights Explains Why They Won

WASHINGTON, Dec. 4, 2019 -- Stanford University Law Professor Pamela Karlan waits to testify before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington D.C., the United States, on Dec. 4, 2019. The Democrat-led House Judiciary Committee took over a months-long impeachment proceeding into U.S. President Donald Trump by holding its first hearing on Wednesday. (Photo by Liu Jie/Xinhua via Getty)
Stanford University Law Professor Pamela Karlan waits to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on December 4, 2019. (Xinhua/Liu Jie via Getty Images)
|
June 15, 2020 2:07 p.m.

Pamela Karlan, the attorney who represented the plaintiffs in the landmark Supreme Court case that ruled in favor of LGBTQ workplace protections, asserted on Monday that the stunning victory was a result of simply following the law as written.

During an interview on MSNBC, Karlan said the blockbuster decision “follows directly from the text of Title VII” in the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

“Title VII says you can’t fire a worker because of that worker’s sex,” she explained. “If you have two workers named Bobby, one of whom is male and one is female, and you fire the male worker named Bobby because he marries somebody named Pete but you don’t fire the female worker for marrying somebody named Pete, that’s sex discrimination, pure and simple.”

The attorney asserted that the six justices who sided with her clients, including Trump-appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch, “took the text of Title VII seriously” instead of basing their decision on what the lawmakers behind the Civil Rights Act may have intended.

“Because whatever [the lawmakers] intended to do, the words they wrote cover lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender workers the same as every other worker,” Karlan said.

As to why Gorsuch made the surprising move and even wrote the majority opinion, Karlan said that “textualists” like Gorsuch will put aside personal politics to follow the law as written.

“Justice Gorsuch was not making a statement about what he would have done if he had been in Congress in 1964,” the lawyer said. “He was making a statement about what the words Congress used in 1964 mean.”

Watch Karlan below:

Support The TPM Journalism Fund
  • Contributions allow us to hire more journalists
  • Contributions allow us to provide free memberships to those who cannot afford them
  • Contributions support independent, non-corporate journalism
Comments
advertisement
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Senior Editor:
Special Projects Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front-End Developer:
Senior Designer:
SPECIAL DEAL FOR PAST TPM MEMBERS
40% OFF AN ANNUAL PRIME MEMBERSHIP
REJOIN FOR JUST $30