Justice Alito warns the Trans ruling threatens free speech, religion, our way of life


“There is only one word for what the court has done today: legislation,” Alito said. “… A more brazen abuse of our authority to interpret statutes is hard to recall.”

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that discrimination on the basis of sex includes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County (2020).

Justices Clarence Thomas and Alito strongly condemned the ruling as “preposterous,” demonstrating “breathtaking” arrogance.

Since Congress tried and failed repeatedly to amend Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, what the Supreme Court has done is legislate and usurp the powers of Congress.

Alito warned it will have wide-ranging consequences.


About bathrooms and changing rooms, Alito warned,  “the Court may wish to avoid this subject, but it is a matter of concern to many people who are reticent about disrobing or using toilet facilities in the presence of individuals whom they regard as members of the opposite sex. For some, this may simply be a question of modesty, but for others, there is more at stake. For women who have been victimized by sexual assault or abuse, the experience of seeing an unclothed person with the anatomy of a male in a confined and sensitive location such as a bathroom or locker room can cause serious psychological harm.”

Based on broad understandings of “transgender status” that could include those who identify as “gender fluid” and those who have not undergone any surgery to alter their bodies. “A person who has not undertaken any physical transitioning may claim the right to use the bathroom or locker room assigned to the sex with which the individual identifies at that particular time,” Alito reasoned.

No one is saying transgenders are predators but women have fought for their rights. This could take them away.

And Women’s Sports

Also in women’s sports,  Alito states “the right of a transgender individual to participate on a sports team or in an athletic competition previously reserved for members of one biological sex” may arise under Title VII and Title IX due to the Court’s ruling in Bostock.

“This issue has already arisen under Title IX, where it threatens to undermine one of that law’s major achievements, giving young women an equal opportunity to participate in sports,” Alito notes. “The effect of the Court’s reasoning may be to force young women to compete against students who have a very significant biological advantage, including students who have the size and strength of a male but identify as female and students who are taking male hormones in order to transition from female to male.”

Alito also warned that this ruling may affect professional sports, as well.

Alito warns. It may also force rape crisis centers for women to admit biological males who claim to identify as women. One such center has already been vandalized with transgender slogans, and some centers have fought long legal battles over the right to allow safe harbor only for women.


The Justice fears it will “trigger open conflict with religious practices of numerous churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious institutions” in employment and housing. It’s especially a concern in the need to hire teachers who will convey the school’s “moral teaching,” he said.

If a religious school teaches that sex outside marriage and sex reassignment procedures are immoral, the message may be lost if the school employs a teacher who is in a same-sex relationship or has undergone or is undergoing sex reassignment.”


Transgenders will also lay claim to health benefits, presenting another religious issue if it comes to sex reassignment surgery, for example.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) just finalized a rule rightly defining sex as biological sex and reversing the Obama administration on these issues. Does Bostock make that HHS rule unconstitutional?


Alito warns that “the Court’s decision may even affect the way employers address their employees and the way teachers and school officials address students. Under established English usage, two sets of sex-specific singular personal pronouns are used to refer to someone in the third person (he, him, and his for males; she, her, and hers for females). But several different sets of gender-neutral pronouns have now been created and are preferred by some individuals who do not identify as falling into either of the two traditional categories.”

“Some jurisdictions, such as New York City, have ordinances making the failure to use an individual’s preferred pronoun a punishable offense, and some colleges have similar rules. After today’s decision, plaintiffs may claim that the failure to use their preferred pronoun violates one of the federal laws prohibiting sex discrimination,” the justice warns.


“If the Court had allowed the legislative process to take its course, “ Alito wrote, “Congress would have had the opportunity to consider competing interests and might have found a way of accommodating at least some of them.” Instead, the Supreme Court has made law, just like it did in Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges.

The left-wing legal blog, ‘Law & Crime,’ feasted on Alito’s dissent. He said it showed people where the gold is hidden.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments