11.2 LGBTQ+ rights and recent jurisprudence

The Supreme Court's stance on LGBTQ+ rights has evolved dramatically since the 1980s. From upholding sodomy laws to legalizing same-sex marriage, the Court's decisions have reshaped American society and expanded constitutional protections for LGBTQ+ individuals.

Recent rulings have extended workplace protections and sparked debates on transgender rights. Issues like bathroom access, sports participation, and healthcare continue to challenge the legal system, highlighting the ongoing struggle for full equality and recognition.

Historical Development of LGBTQ+ Rights

LGBTQ+ rights in Supreme Court

• Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) upheld state sodomy laws ruled Constitution does not protect right to engage in homosexual sodomy
• Romer v. Evans (1996) struck down Colorado's Amendment 2 prohibited laws protecting LGBTQ+ individuals from discrimination (housing, employment)
• Lawrence v. Texas (2003) overturned Bowers v. Hardwick struck down Texas sodomy law established constitutional protection for same-sex intimate conduct
• United States v. Windsor (2013) struck down Section 3 of DOMA required federal recognition of same-sex marriages (tax benefits, immigration rights)
• Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) legalized same-sex marriage nationwide established marriage equality as fundamental right (adoption, inheritance, medical decisions)

Reasoning in landmark LGBTQ+ cases

• Lawrence v. Texas (2003) invoked Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment right to privacy liberty interest in intimate personal relationships (consensual adult behavior)
• United States v. Windsor (2013) relied on Equal Protection Clause federalism concerns dignity and recognition of same-sex relationships (state-defined marriage)
• Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) applied Due Process Clause Equal Protection Clause fundamental right to marry dignity and autonomy of same-sex couples (family formation, social recognition)

Recent Developments and Ongoing Challenges

Impact of employment discrimination rulings

• Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) extended Title VII protections to LGBTQ+ employees interpreted "sex" in Civil Rights Act of 1964 impacted workplace policies and practices (hiring, promotion, termination)
• Potential challenges to religious exemptions balance non-discrimination and religious freedom ministerial exception in employment law (faith-based organizations, religious schools)

Debates on transgender rights

• Bathroom access controversies state laws restricting bathroom use based on biological sex Title IX interpretations and school policies (public accommodations, privacy concerns)
• Participation in sports debates over fairness in athletic competition state laws banning transgender athletes from certain teams (high school, collegiate levels)
• Healthcare access insurance coverage for gender-affirming treatments medical decision-making for transgender minors (hormone therapy, surgical procedures)
• Legal recognition of gender identity birth certificate and identification document changes non-binary gender markers on official documents (passports, driver's licenses)