♪
>> Announcer: THIS IS AN NBC
NEWS SPECIAL REPORT.
HERE’S KATE SNOW.
>>> GOOD MORNING.
WE HAVE BREAKING NEWS FROM THE
SUPREME COURT.
IT IS A LANDMARK DECISION FOR
THE LGBTQ COMMUNITY.
THE JUSTICES RULING THAT IT IS
ILLEGAL FOR WORKERS TO BE
DISMISSED FROM A JOB BASED ON
SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER
IDENTITY.
NBC JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT PETE
WILLIAMS JOINS US WITH ALL THE
DETAILS.
PETE, WHAT CAN YOU TELL US?
>> WELL, THIS IS A STUNNER,
FRANKLY, COMING FROM THIS
CONSERVATIVE SUPREME COURT THAT
NO LONGER HAS ANTHONY KENNEDY
AMONG THE JUSTICES, THE MAN WHO
WROTE ALL OF THE GAY RIGHTS
DECISIONS BEFORE.
BUT TODAY, THE SUPREME COURT HAS
RULED THAT TITLE 7 OF THE CIVIL
RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, WHICH MAKES
IT ILLEGAL FOR EMPLOYERS TO FIRE
EMPLOYEES ON THE BASIS OF SEX,
ALSO COVERS SEXUAL ORIENTATION.
NOW, THE LOWER COURTS HAD BEEN
DIVIDED ON THIS, AND THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION SIDED AGAINST
THIS RULING, SAYING, NO, THAT
WHEN CONGRESS PASSED THE CIVIL
RIGHTS ACT IN 1964, NOBODY WAS
THINKING ABOUT SEXUAL
ORIENTATION.
IT WAS SIMPLY DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST MEN OR WOMEN.
BUT TODAY, THE SUPREME COURT
SAID, NO, THAT’S NOT THE CASE.
SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS CONSIDERED
PART OF THAT 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS
ACT.
NOW, THIS IS A VICTORY FOR AN
ATLANTA MAN, GERALD BOSTAUK, WHO
WORKED FOR THE COUNTY AND WAS
FIRED AFTER HIS EMPLOYER FOUND
OUT HE WAS ON A GAY MEN’S
SOFTBALL TEAM.
HE SUED AND THE COURT SAID
SORRY, YOU CAN’T SUE UNDER THE
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, IT DOESN’T
COVER SEXUAL ORIENTATION.
AND THE SUPREME COURT TODAY SAID
THAT’S WRONG.
IT’S AN ISSUE THAT DIVIDED THE
LOWER COURTS.
ON THE SAME DAY THIS WAS ARGUED,
THE SUPREME COURT HEARD A
SEPARATE CASE ON WHETHER IT’S
ALSO ILLEGAL UNDER THIS SAME
CIVIL RIGHTS LAW TO FIRE SOMEONE
FOR TRANSGENDER STATUS.
WE DON’T HAVE THAT DECISION.
THE SUPREME COURT, AS YOU KNOW,
IN THIS TIME OF THE PANDEMIC IS
NOT ACTUALLY IN THE COURTROOM.
ALL THIS IS HAPPENING VIRTUALLY.
AND FRANKLY, ALL WE HAVE SO FAR
OF THE DECISION IS THE VERY
FIRST PAGE.
BUT I’M TOLD NOW THAT IT’S
STARTING TO LINE UP.
AND THE VOTE IS 6-3 WITH NEIL
GORSUCH, ONE OF THE TRUMP
APPOINTEES, JOINING THE CHIEF
JUSTICE, JOHN ROBERTS, AND THE
COURT’S FOUR MORE LIBERAL
MEMBERS, TO FORM THIS 6-3
MAJORITY.
SO, THIS IS A HUGE THING.
AND I WOULD JUST SAY ONE OTHER
THING ABOUT THIS, KATE.
GAY RIGHTS GROUPS CONSIDERED
THIS EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THAN
THE FIGHT FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY,
BECAUSE WHILE NOT EVERY GAY
PERSON IN AMERICA GETS MARRIED,
MOST GAY ADULTS WANT OR NEED A
JOB.
AND AS OF JUST A FEW MINUTES
AGO, IT WAS POSSIBLE TO GET
MARRIED ON SUNDAY AND LEGALLY
FIRED ON MONDAY, BUT NO MORE.
KATE?
>> AND PETE, YOU MENTIONED NEIL
GORSUCH.
YOU HAD TOLD US WHEN WE WERE
PREPARING FOR THIS POSSIBILITY
TODAY THAT HE ARGUED IN THE
ARGUMENT, YOU KNOW, INDICATING
THAT HE MIGHT ACCEPT THIS
ARGUMENT, THAT THESE RIGHTS ARE
COVERED BY THAT STATUTE.
>> YEAH, HE SAID THAT, ACTUALLY,
MORE IN THE TRANSGENDER
ARGUMENT, BUT HE SEEMED TO BE
AMONG THE CONSERVATIVES THE ONE
THAT WAS DISTANTLY POSSIBLE TO
MAYBE BE PEELED AWAY TO JOIN THE
MAJORITY, AND THAT’S WHAT HE’S
DONE HERE.
WE’LL HAVE TO SEE WHAT THE LOGIC
IS AS THIS -- THIS THING IS -- I
GUESS THERE ARE SO MANY PEOPLE
ON THE SUPREME COURT WEBSITE
THAT THE PAGES ARE LOADING VERY
SLOWLY, BUT AT LEAST WE KNOW
WHAT THE BOTTOM LINE IS, KATE.
>> WELL, WHY DON’T WE LET YOU
READ THAT, PETE?
AND I’LL JUMP OVER TO NBC’S
PETER ALEXANDER AT THE WHITE
HOUSE, WHO IS WITH US AS WELL.
PETER, THIS IS A LANDMARK
RULING.
ANY REACTION YET FROM THE WHITE
HOUSE?
>> Reporter: NO, KATE.
ACTUALLY, WE JUST REACHED OUT TO
THE WHITE HOUSE MOMENTS AGO.
WE HAVEN’T HEARD FROM THEM YET.
THE PRESIDENT’S BEEN TWEETING ON
OTHER TOPICS OVER THE COURSE OF
THIS DAY.
THIS HAS NOT BEEN TOP OF MIND
FROM HIM.
BUT YOU KNOW, LGBTQ ACTIVISTS
AND ALLIES HAVE SAID THERE
REALLY HAS BEEN THIS WHIPLASH
BETWEEN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION
AND THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IN
TERMS OF THEIR POLICIES ON
ISSUES RELATED TO THE GAY
COMMUNITY, SO THIS WILL
CERTAINLY BE HAILED AS A VICTORY
IN THOSE COMMUNITIES.
WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE’S POSITION
ON THIS WILL BE WILL BE
INTERESTING.
WE WAIT TO HEAR FROM THE
PRESIDENT ON THIS TOPIC, AS HEAR
FROM HIM A LITTLE BIT LATER.
WE KNOW THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF
FOCUS ON SOME OF THE OTHER
ISSUES THAT THE COURT’S BEEN
REVIEWING AS WELL, INCLUDING
ISSUES AS THEY RELATE TO THE
PRESIDENT’S TAXES AND THE ISSUE
OF DACA.
ON THIS ONE, THOUGH, CERTAINLY,
WE’RE STILL WAITING TO HEAR FROM
THE PRESIDENT HOW HE TRIES TO
FRAME THIS, EVEN THOUGH HIS
ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN PUSHING
TO TRY TO ROLL BACK A LOT OF THE