[U: Working Fully-Downloadable Decision From My Server] Watershed Decision, From The Supremes: "On The Basis Of... Sex"

Very late in arriving, and the 137 page opinion (authored by Gorsuch) is breaking the internet at the moment. This will be is NOW a working link to it as soon as the tubes unclog, but only Alito, Cavanaugh and Thomas dissented.

This plainly invalidates Trump's executive order of Friday, as unconstitutional, as to government/military employees.

. . . .The statute’s message for our cases is equally simple and momentous: An individual’s homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions. That’s because it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex. Consider, for example, an employer with two employees, both of whom are attracted to men. The two individuals are, to the employer’s mind, materially identical in all respects, except that one is a man and the other a woman. If the employer fires the male employee for no reason other than the fact he is attracted to men, the employer discriminates against him for traits or actions it tolerates in his female colleague. Put differently, the employer intentionally singles out an employee to fire based in part on the employee’s sex, and the affected employee’s sex is a but-for cause of his discharge.

Or take an employer who fires a transgender person who was identified as a male at birth but who now identifies as a female. If the employer retains an otherwise identical employee who was identified as female at birth, the employer intentionally penalizes a person identified as male at birth for traits or actions that it tolerates in an employee identified as female at birth. Again, the individual employee’s sex plays an unmistakable and impermissible role in the discharge decision. . . .

Grinning, ear to ear.

नमस्ते