I WANT TO BRING IN SUPREME COURT
ANALYST TOM GOLDSTEIN.
MR. GOLDSTEIN, GOOD TO HAVE YOU
WITH US.
THIS IS OBVIOUSLY AS I WAS
SAYING AND PETE WILLIAMS WAS
DESCRIBING CITEQUITE THE HISTORI
DESICHLGTS LET’S TALK ABOUT WHAT
WE KNOW.
THE CASE OF BOSTAK.
WHAT WAS THE CASE WITH THIS
DECISION?
>> IT’S AN INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT
DECISION WHEN IT COMES TO
EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION LAW
PARTICULARLY AFTER KENNEDY LEFT
THE SUPREME COURT.
THIS IS THE SINGLE MOST
IMPORTANT CIVIL RIGHTS LAW WHEN
IT COMES TO EMPLOYMENT.
THE COURT HAD BEEN EXPECTED NOT
TO HOLD THAT GAYS AND LESBIANS
WERE PROTECTED.
THERE’S A SECOND CASE INVOLVING
TRANSGENDER INDIVIDUALS THAT WE
SHOULD GET A RULING ANY SECOND
IN TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THE
SUPREME COURT HAS PROTECTED THEM
UNDER THE SAME STATUTE, BUT THIS
IS A LAW THAT APPLIES THROUGHOUT
THE COUNTRY AND CAN AFFECT THE
DAILY LIFE OF BASICALLY EVERY
GAY AND LESBIAN ADULT IN THE
COUNTRY BECAUSE IT WAS
PERMISSIBLE IN THE COUNTRY TO
SIMPLY FIRE THEM UNDER THAT
BASIS UNDER FEDERAL LAW, AND THE
ONLY PROTECTIONS WOULD BE
AVAILABLE FROM THE STATES.
>> I WANT TO REMIND OUR VIEWERS
VERY QUICKLY JUST AS YOU
MENTIONED, TOM, WE ARE EXPECTING
ANOTHER SUPREME COURT DESICHLGS
THAT SHOULD BE COMING OUT IN A
FEW MINUTES.
WE’LL BRING IT LIVE AS SOON AS A
DECISION IS RENDERED.
I WANTED TO GIVE OUR VIEWERS AN
UPDATE.
AT ISSUE -- WE’LL GET TO THE
BREAKDOWN OF THE VOTE IN A
MOMENT -- IS WHETHER THE 1964
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT BARS EMPLOYMENT
DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEXUAL
ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY.
WE SHOULD NOTE THIS IS A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT CASE BECAUSE IT’S
SIGNIFICANT CASE BECAUSE IT’S
THE FIRST CASE CONCERNING LGBTQ
RIGHTS IN
RIGHTS.
LET’S TALK ABOUT THIS VOTE, 6-3,
PETE WILLIAMS MAKING POINT THAT
NEIL GORSUCH JOINED CHIEF
JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS APPOINTED
BY PRESIDENT BUSH, NEIL GORSUCH
APPOINTED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP AND
JOINING THE FOUR OTHER JUSTICES,
THE LIBERAL JUSTICES OF THE
COURT TO RENDER THIS DECISION.
WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THAT SPLIT?
>> JUSTICE GORSUCH DID SEEM
SOMEWHAT SYMPATHETIC TO THE
PLAINTIFFS HERE JUST BASED ON
THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE
STATUTE.
HE’S A VERY CONSERVATIVE GUY,
BUT HE WAS -- HE DIDN’T REALLY
RECOGNIZE THAT THE SUPREME COURT
HAD INTERPRETED THE LANGUAGE IN
THE PAST QUITE BROADLY AND THERE
DIDN’T SEEM TO BE A FAIR WAY TO
DISTINGUISH BETWEEN PRIOR
PRECEDENCE THAT HAD EXPAENSIVELY
READ THE SCOPE OF THE PEOPLE WHO
ARE PROTECTED BY TITLE 7.
SO IT’S NO GRAVE SHOCK THAT HE’S
IN THE RULING, BUT IT’S ALSO A
VERY GOOD SIGN PROBABLY FOR THE
PLAINTIFFS IN THE TRANSGENDER
CASE, WHICH WE’LL HEAR ABOUT IN
JUST A MOMENT.
>> LET’S TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT
THAT COMPARISON MY COLLEAGUE
PETE WILLIAMS MADE, THAT
SOMEWHERE IN THE ANALYSIS, THIS
WAS MORE IMPORTANT THAN MARRIAGE
EQUALITY BECAUSE AS HE NOTED NOT
EVERY GAY PERSON WANTS TO GET
MARRIED, BUT HAD THIS DECISION
NOT COME OUT, GAY PEOPLE IF THEY
COME OUT COULD BE FIRED FROM
THEIR JOBS WITHOUT PROTECTION.
THAT’S NO LONGER THE CASE.
>> THAT’S RIGHT.
PETE IS TALKING ABOUT VERY
PRACTICAL TERMS.
WHEN YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT THE
RULES THAT APPLY IN EVERY SINGLE
EMPLOYMENT ERA, ANY JOB OF ANY
SIZE EXCEPT FOR VERY SMALL
COMPANIES THAT ARE EXEMPTED FROM
THE STATUTE, YOU’RE TALKING
ABOUT MONUMENTAL IMPORTANCE.
THE GUY RIGHTS ARE SYMBOLICALLY
IMPORTANT AND MARRIAGE HAS A
VERY SPECIAL PLACE IN FAMILY AND
OUR SOCIETY, BUT WHEN IT COMES
TO THE NUTS AND BOLTS FOR THE
PROTECTION OF GAYS AND LESBIANS,
THERE’S NONE MORE IMPORTANT.
>> I WANT TO BRING IN A FORMER
ACTING SOLICITOR GENERAL AND
MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST.
THANK YOU FOR JOINING US ON
SHORT NOTICE.
FIRST OF ALL, GIVE US YOUR
DECISION ON THE LAND MARK
DECISION?
>> IT’S LANDMARK, WATERSHED
DECISION, 6-3, WITH THE CHIEF
JUSTICE AND SUPREME COURT JUDGE
NEIL GORSUCH JOINING WITH THE
FOUR DEMOCRATIC EMPLOYEES TO
PROTECT LGBTQ WORKERS.
TO THINK A FEW WEEKS AGO THESE
FOLKS WERE THE BUTT OF ANY JOKE
AND RAMPANTLY DISCRIMINATED
AGAINST.
IN 26 STATES YOU COULD BE FIRED
FOR BEING LGBT.
ALL OF THAT IS SWEPT ASIDE.
I HEARD MY FRIEND TOM GOLDSTEIN
TALK ABOUT THE DECISION.
OBVIOUSLY IT’S JUST COME OUT,
BUT I THINK ONE IMPORTANT THING
IN THE DECISION WHICH I’VE NOW
HAD A CHANCE TO QUICKLY SKIM,
EVEN THOUGH WE DON’T HAVE THE
TRANSGENDER CASE YET, IT SHOULD
BE COMING IN A FEW MINUTES FROM
THE SUPREME COURT.
THE WRITTEN OPINION AND THE
DECISION MAKES CLEAR THE SUPREME
COURT’S RULING IS PROTECTING NOT
JUST LGBT BUT TRANSGENDER
WORKERS.
YOU CAN’T FIRE SOMEONE
TRANSGENDER.
IT’S A SWEEPING WIN FOR ALL OF
THOSE CHALLENGING PROTECTION IN
THE WORKPLACE.
>> WE’RE KEEPING AN EYE ON THE
SECOND DECISION.
ONCE THAT’S POSTED, IT SHOULD BE
HAPPENING ANY MINUTE NOW.
IS THERE IN YOUR OPINION A
CORRELATION BETWEEN THIS
DECISION AND THE TRANSGENDER ONE
THAT SHOULD BE COMING OUT ANY
MINUTE?
>> YES.
THE DECISION TODAY, ALREADY THE
ONE WE HAVE MAKES CLEAR THAT THE
COURT AND THE OTHER CASE HAS
PROTECTED TRANSGENDER EMPLOYEES,
SO EVEN THOUGH WE DON’T HAVE
THAT DECISION YET, THEY’RE
WORKING ON A DELAY OF SOME
MINUTES.
THEY HAVE A WRITTEN OPINION IN
THIS CASE INVOLVING NOT
TRANSGENDER EMPLOYEES, BUT THEY
MAKE CLEAR THEIR RULING IS GOING
TO INCLUDE TRANSGENDER WORKERS
AS WELL.
>> CAN YOU GIVE US A QUICK
SYNOPSIS OF WHAT’S AT ISSUE IN
THIS CASE?
AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE WOMAN AT
THE CENTER OF THIS CASE
UNFORTUNATELY AMY STEVENS DIED
ON MAY 12th, 2020.
SHE’S NOT GOING TO SEE THE
DECISION MADE OUT, THIS LANDMARK
DECISION.
SHE WAS TERMINATED FROM A
DETROIT AREA FUNERAL HOME IN
2013 AFTER ANNOUNCING SHE WOULD
BE LIVING HER LIFE AS A WOMAN.
>> YEAH.
SO SHE DID PASS AWAY
UNFORTUNATELY.
SOMETIMES WHEN SOMEONE PASSES
AWAY --
>> IT’S COMBINED.
ONE RULING.
>> SORRY.
TOM, DID YOU -- NEIL, STAY WITH
ME.
DID YOU SAY BOTH DECISIONS CAME
OUT TOGETHER.
>> YES.
NEIL WAS CORRECT.
THAT IS THE SUPREME COURT’S
OPINION -- JUST TO STEP BACK SO
PEOPLE HAVE THE CONTEXT, THERE
WERE TWO DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS,
ONE ABOUT GAYS AND LESBIANS AND
ONE ABOUT TRANSGENDER
INDIVIDUALS.
WE EXPECTED TWO DIFFERENT
DECISIONS.
WHAT THE COURT DECIDED TO DO IS
ISSUE ONE OPINION TOGETHER.
SO AS NEIL SAYS YOU CANNOT
DISCRIMINATE UNDER TITLE SEVEN.
BUT WE’RE NOT WAITING FOR
ANYTHING ELSE IT TURNS OUT.
IN A SOMEWHAT UNUSUAL MOVE,
THEY’VE COMBINED EVERYTHING INTO
ONE RULING.
THE SUPREME COURT HAS DECIDED TO
BE UNEQUIVOCAL, THEY’LL HAVE ONE
DECISION ON THE STATUS.
>> THAT’S AN IMPORTANT POINT.
I’M GLAD YOU POINTED THAT OUT.
JUST TO RECAP, BOTH OF THESE
CASES WERE COMBINED INTO ONE.
THE 6/3 DECISION STANDS FOR BOTH