Kara Sears
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) rights in the United States have evolved significantly since the late 1980s, with public opinion and jurisprudence changing dramatically. While lesbian, gay, and bisexual rights are considered advanced, transgender rights have faced erosion since the start of Donald Trump's second presidency. The Supreme Court has played a crucial role in expanding LGBTQ+ rights through constitutional cases, such as the landmark rulings in Romer v. Evans, US v. Windsor, Obergefell v. Hodges, and Bostock v. Clayton County. These decisions have addressed issues like marriage equality, anti-discrimination laws, and transgender rights, shaping the legal landscape for the LGBTQ+ community.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court rulings | In 2020, the Supreme Court held in Bostock v. Clayton County that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity is a form of sex discrimination. |
| In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court ruled that state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage violate the Fourteenth Amendment on both due process and equal protection grounds. | |
| In Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court struck down a state law that criminalized homosexual sodomy, determining that states cannot restrict the right of consenting adults to engage in private sexual conduct. | |
| In Romer v. Evans, the Supreme Court struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment that would have prevented state and local government entities from granting legally protected status to LGBTQ+ individuals. | |
| State laws | In many states, LGBTQ+ Americans are explicitly protected from discrimination in employment, housing, and access to public accommodations. |
| Twenty-three states outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation, and twenty-two states outlaw discrimination based on gender identity or expression. | |
| In some states, laws prohibit discrimination based on gender identity or expression, protecting transgender people's right to use public restrooms and locker rooms that match their gender identity. | |
| Same-sex marriage is legal nationwide, but family law varies by state. | |
| In 2023, over 500 anti-LGBTQ bills were submitted in the US, many targeting healthcare and gender-affirming care for minors. | |
| Federal law | There is no federal law that bans discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in public accommodations. |
| Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits employers with 15 or more employees from discriminating on the basis of sex. | |
| The federal Fair Housing Act prohibits sex discrimination by most landlords. | |
| Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 bans discrimination on the basis of sex by public schools. |
Explore related products
$20.22 $25.99
What You'll Learn
The Supreme Court's expansion of LGBTQ+ rights
The Supreme Court has played a significant role in expanding the rights of the LGBTQ+ community in the United States. While most of these cases examine the impact of constitutional principles, a few interpret federal statutes. Here is a detailed overview of some of the notable instances where the Supreme Court has expanded LGBTQ+ rights:
Romer v. Evans
In this case, the Supreme Court reversed a Colorado constitutional amendment that aimed to prevent state and local government entities from granting legally protected status to LGBTQ+ individuals. The Court struck down the amendment as a violation of equal protection, applying a standard known as "rational basis-plus," which indicated overt animosity toward the LGBTQ+ community.
Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
The Supreme Court overruled a state law that criminalized homosexual sodomy, determining that states cannot restrict the right of consenting adults to engage in private sexual conduct, thus protecting the personal autonomy and dignity of homosexual individuals.
Defense of Marriage Act (2013)
The Supreme Court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional in defining "marriage" and "spouse" to exclude lawfully married same-sex couples for federal law purposes. This decision ensured that same-sex spouses were entitled to the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses.
Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled that state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage violate the Fourteenth Amendment's due process and equal protection clauses. This ruling, authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, established that the right to marriage is a fundamental right, marking a rapid expansion of LGBTQ+ rights by the Court.
Bostock v. Clayton County (2020)
The Supreme Court held that discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity constitutes sex discrimination. This decision extended protections to LGBTQ+ individuals in employment, housing, and education, interpreting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit discrimination in these areas.
Recent Developments
The Supreme Court's recent rulings have sparked concerns about the erosion of LGBTQ+ rights. For example, in United States v. Skrmetti (2025), the Court upheld a Tennessee law banning certain medical care for transgender minors, and in a separate case in 2025, it allowed parents to opt their children out of classes with LGBTQ+ themes, citing religious freedom. These decisions reflect a conservative turn that may impact previously secured LGBTQ+ rights.
Sherman vs. Clayton: Which Law Came First?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Marriage equality
One notable case is Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), where the Supreme Court invalidated several state laws that limited marriage and its recognition to heterosexual couples. The Court ruled that the right of same-sex couples to marry is derived from the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which states that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". This decision was a landmark victory for LGBTQ+ rights, as it recognized the synergy between the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause, highlighting evolving societal norms and understandings about homosexuality.
Prior to this, in United States v. Windsor (2013), the Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined "spouse" as a person of the opposite sex for the purposes of federal law. The Court found that this section of DOMA violated basic due process and equal protection principles, as it was motivated by an improper purpose to stigmatize same-sex marriages. This case set an important precedent for marriage equality by recognizing the unconstitutionality of laws that discriminate against same-sex couples.
Despite these advancements, there is still work to be done to ensure full equality for LGBTQ+ individuals in the United States. As of 2020, only one state, Massachusetts, grants civil marriage rights to same-sex couples, and there are still gaps in legal protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Additionally, the Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) case extended federal protections to LGBTQ+ individuals in areas such as education, housing, credit, and healthcare, but there are still legal challenges and social prejudices that impact the well-being of the LGBTQ+ community.
How General Assembly Creates Laws
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$14 $28
![Modern Family Law: Cases and Materials [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook) (Aspen Casebook Series)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61rYYFiotfL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
Discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations
Discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This law prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sex, and in 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that this includes sexual orientation and gender identity. This ruling means that LGBTQ+ people across the country can file complaints with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and seek legal recourse for discrimination in the workplace through federal courts.
Despite these federal protections, LGBTQ+ people still face significant discrimination in employment. Research by the Movement Advancement Project found that LGBTQ+ people, especially people of color and those raising children, experience higher rates of economic instability and are more likely to face discrimination at work and during job searches. A survey conducted by HRC and PSB in April/May 2020 found that one-third of LGBTQ+ people reduced their work hours due to discrimination.
In addition to federal protections, some states and localities have explicit laws prohibiting employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity. These state and local laws are crucial to ensuring that LGBTQ+ people are protected at every level of government. For example, Missouri law prohibits employment discrimination based on sex stereotypes, and a ruling affirmed the right of LGBTQ+ Missourians to bring charges of employment discrimination based on sex stereotyping.
In the area of housing, there is currently no comprehensive federal law that consistently protects LGBTQ+ individuals from housing discrimination. However, the Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, and national origin. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) interprets this Act to include discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. LGBTQ+ people who believe they have experienced housing discrimination can file a complaint with HUD, which will investigate and enforce the Fair Housing Act.
The Fair and Equal Housing Act has been proposed to provide explicit non-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ people in housing by adding "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" as protected characteristics under the Fair Housing Act. Currently, only 22 states and the District of Columbia prohibit housing discrimination based on both sexual orientation and gender identity. This lack of consistent protection means that LGBTQ+ people face significant challenges in accessing housing without discrimination.
Public accommodation nondiscrimination laws aim to protect LGBTQ+ people from discrimination in public places outside of home, work, or school. These laws vary across states and localities, with some explicitly including sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes. These protections are important to ensure that LGBTQ+ individuals can access public spaces and services without fear of discrimination.
Contract Law: Traditional Analysis Approaches
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$19.67 $29.99
$23.2 $43
Gender-affirming care for minors
While the Supreme Court has greatly expanded LGBTQ+ rights in its constitutional cases, gender-affirming care for minors has increasingly come under attack in many conservative legislatures. This type of care has been available in the U.S. for over a decade and is endorsed by major medical associations. However, in 2023, over 130 out of 500 anti-LGBTQ bills submitted in the U.S. were about healthcare, with efforts to prohibit gender-affirming care for minors.
The ACLU reports that the conservative organization Do No Harm was influential in developing model legislation that appeared in Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, and West Virginia legislatures. On June 18, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Skrmetti that bans on gender-affirming care for minors were constitutional.
In response, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) launched a public inquiry to better understand how consumers, particularly minors, may have been exposed to false or unsupported claims about "gender-affirming care". The FTC is seeking to evaluate whether consumers have been harmed and whether medical professionals or others may have violated Sections 5 and 12 of the FTC Act by failing to disclose the material risks associated with "gender-affirming care" or making false claims about its benefits.
The public had 60 days to submit comments, with the FTC hearing testimony from doctors, medical ethicists, whistleblowers, detransitioners, and parents of detransitioners. This inquiry is part of the FTC's long history of bringing enforcement actions to protect and educate consumers.
Understanding Contract Law Restatements: A Primer
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Criminalization of homosexual sodomy
The criminalization of homosexual sodomy has a long history, with early modern Europe witnessing the death penalty for sodomy. The English monarch Henry VIII enacted the Buggery Act in 1533, which prescribed the death penalty for buggery (anal sex). This law was based on the religious prohibition outlined in Leviticus. Many present-day jurisdictions still criminalize homosexuality due to the colonial criminal codes they inherited from British rule.
In the United States, the first colonial settlers passed laws punishing gay sex with the death penalty. For instance, in 1636, the Plymouth Colony listed sodomy as a capital offense, alongside treason, witchcraft, arson, rape, murder, bestiality, and adultery. The Massachusetts Bay Colony followed suit in 1641, adopting the Body of Laws and Liberties, which established twelve capital offenses, including sodomy. This statute directly reflected the language of the Old Testament, quoting Leviticus 20:13.
In 1700, the Pennsylvania Assembly passed "An Act Against Incest, Sodomy, and Bestiality," which mandated imprisonment, whipping, and castration for married men convicted of sodomy or bestiality. Black men who committed these crimes against white women were punished by death. In 1718, the New Hampshire legislature passed "An Act against Murder, etc.," combining capital laws and sodomy laws. Rhode Island was the only New England colony that did not adopt Leviticus' language in its statutes but maintained capital punishment for sodomy.
During the McCarthy era of the 1950s, a nationwide witch hunt targeted male "homosexuals," conflating consensual adult homosexual acts with child molestation. This persecution of private sexual acts between consenting adults drew criticism from influential legal authorities, marking a shift in societal attitudes.
In the landmark case of Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, the Supreme Court overruled Bowers and struck down a state law that criminalized homosexual sodomy. The Court determined that states could not restrict the right of consenting adults to engage in private sexual conduct, thus affirming the personal autonomy of LGBTQ+ individuals. This decision was based on both due process and equal protection principles, marking a significant step forward in the expansion of LGBTQ+ rights.
Contract Law Basics: Understanding Standard Contracts
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Social attitudes and legislation regarding LGBTQ+ rights in the US have changed dramatically since the 1980s. In 2003, the Supreme Court overruled a state law that criminalized homosexual sodomy, protecting the right of consenting adults to engage in private sexual conduct. In 2013, the Defense of Marriage Act was deemed unconstitutional, and the federal government began recognizing same-sex marriages. In 2015, same-sex marriage was legalized across all states. In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects LGBTQ+ individuals from discrimination in the workplace. Despite this progress, over 500 anti-LGBTQ+ bills were introduced in 2023, and the rights of transgender people have faced significant erosion.
In 2009, Barack Obama became the first president to declare June as LGBTQ+ pride month. His administration reversed Bush-era policies and signed a UN declaration calling for the decriminalization of homosexuality. Obama also expressed opposition to state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage in California, Florida, North Carolina, and Minnesota.
Transgender students are legally protected by Title IX and the Constitution, which ensure their right to access sex-separated programs and facilities that align with their gender identity. The First Amendment also protects their right to free expression, including bringing a same-sex date to school events and discussing LGBTQ+ topics. Additionally, schools cannot "out" a student without their permission, as this would violate their constitutional right to privacy.
