Members of Congress Sign Amicus Brief to Block Federal LGBTQ Non-Discrimination Protections

The Supreme Court Building (via SupremeCourt.gov)
The United States Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. / Image via SupremeCourt.gov

As Instinct reported over recent months, hundreds of businesses, churches and even professional sports franchises have lined up to support LGBTQ rights. More specifically, they have sided with LGBTQ discrimination victims in pending U.S. Supreme Court cases set for October which might finally extend Title VII’s federal non-discrimination protections to encompass all Americans, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Now, however, opposed groups have asserted their anti-LGBTQ preferences for the upcoming court cases. Unsurprisingly, a slate of U.S. House members and several sitting U.S. Senators have joined the fray, signing on with a recently filed amicus brief to express opposition to recognizing Title VII as covering LGBTQ Americans.

In short, the brief argues from an arcane perspective: Title VII, as a product of congressional action, must be construed narrowly (i.e., applying only to binary sex, men and women, without including sexual orientation or trans and gender-non-conforming Americans).

It’s a classic constitutional separation-of-powers assertion, with the spare conclusion reading, simply:

As Members of Congress, amici are concerned that what this Court is being asked to do is to exercise authority rightly conferred upon the Article I Branch. The Court should reject the invitation to do so.

(Interestingly, counsel for the undersigned includes Ken Starr, who was included in an extensive Instinct overview of Baylor University’s anti-LGBTQ conduct and mishandling of pervasive sexual assault allegations earlier this month.)

The brief’s Appendix lists all signers of the amici, reproduced here:

United States Senators

Marsha Blackburn

Roy Blunt

Mike Braun

John Cornyn

Kevin Cramer

James M. Inhofe

James Lankford

Mike Lee

Members of the United States House of Representatives

Robert B. Aderholt (AL-04)

Rick W. Allen (GA-12)

Brian Babin, DDS (TX-36)

Jim Banks (IN-03)

Andy Biggs (AZ-05)

Ted Budd (NC-13)

Michael C. Burgess, M.D. (TX-26)

Doug Collins (GA-09)

Warren Davidson (OH-08)

Jeff Duncan (SC-03)

Bill Flores (TX-17)

Russ Fulcher (ID-01)

Louie Gohmert (TX-01)

Paul A. Gosar, DDS (AZ-04)

Glenn Grothman (WI-06)

Michael Guest (MS-03)

Andy Harris (MD-01)

Vicky Hartzler (MO-04)

Jody Hice (GA-10)

George Holding (NC-02)

Richard Hudson (NC-08)

Jim Jordan (OH-04)

Steve King (IA-04)

Doug LaMalfa (CA-01)

Doug Lamborn (CO-05)

Debbie Lesko (AZ-08)

Thomas Massie (KY-04)

Mark Meadows (NC-11)

Alex X. Mooney (WV-02)

Ralph Norman (SC-05)

Pete Olson (TX-22)

Gary Palmer (AL-06)

John Ratcliffe (TX-04)

David Rouzer (NC-07)

Van Taylor (TX-03)

Tim Walberg (MI-07)

Mark Walker (NC-06)

Randy K. Weber (TX-14)

Ron Wright (TX-06)

Ted S. Yoho, DVM (FL-03)


As NBC News reported earlier this week, the brief comes paired with the Trump administration’s own recently filed briefs, arguing for similarly exclusionary interpretations of federal non-discrimination law.

The cases are scheduled to begin oral arguments on October 8, 2019.

(Source: Supreme Court Docket; NBC News)

Leave a Comment