禁漫天堂

Professor John Rice commented on the Supreme Court鈥檚 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, in which the Court construed the statutory prohibition against workplace 鈥渄iscrimination on the basis of . . . sex鈥� to protect against workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Rice noted that the Court鈥檚 decision has been widely hailed as a victory for civil rights and equality and welcomed the ruling with 鈥渃autious optimism.鈥�

UMass Law Professor John Rice commented on the Supreme Court鈥檚 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, in which the Court construed the statutory prohibition against workplace 鈥渄iscrimination on the basis of . . . sex鈥� to protect against workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. In his article posted on the , Rice noted that the Court鈥檚 decision has been widely hailed as a victory for civil rights and equality, but welcomed the ruling with 鈥渃autious optimism.鈥� Professor Rice explained that while this decision certainly affords some protection and relief to members of the LGBTQIA+ community, there is still much that can, should, and will be said about the 鈥渘ext issues鈥� confronting full equality.

Rice also commended the Court鈥檚 ruling for upholding the rule of law and promoting confidence in the judiciary. Rice described the Court鈥檚 rationale as applying familiar canons of statutory interpretation, being consistent with the Court鈥檚 prior holdings, and offering an analytical framework for future cases. As Rice praised the Court鈥檚 ruling, he celebrated the Court鈥檚 sound rejection of the notion of 鈥渟ecret鈥� law or the idea that a legislature鈥檚 subjective intent鈥攐r perhaps even just the subjective intent of a few legislators鈥攃ould supersede the plain language of a statute.

Professor Rice鈥檚 comments were initially posted at the Human Rights at Home Blog, and were later featured on SCOTUS Blog鈥檚 daily round up.