Those are the words of The Heritage Foundation (author of Project 2025) in a recent blog post calling for SCOTUS to overturn Bostock's prohibition of transgender discrimination as sex discrimination under Title VII.
"But Jon," you protest, "precedent is sacred; SCOTUS is bound to follow its prior decisions. The Bostock case says that Title VII protects transgender employees from discrimination, period."
How did that work out for abortion rights and Roe v. Wade? The Dobbs majority did not care a wit about "stare decisis" or "precedent" in undoing 50 years of precedent to conclude that there is no federal constitutional right to an abortion. If you think for a second that our current Supreme Court majority cares about precedent, you are not paying attention.
There is a serious risk that this Court will overturn Bostock and hold that:
🏳️⚧️ Employees must use a workplace bathroom that aligns with their sex assigned at birth.
🏳️⚧️ Health insurance plans cannot be required to pay for gender transition treatments and surgeries.
🏳️⚧️ Businesses cannot mandate the use of preferred pronouns.
This is what I wrote two years ago after the Dobbs decision: "Precedent provides certainty, binding future judicial decisions and guiding our resulting conduct. The Supreme Court, as the ultimate authority, establishes precedent no court can overrule. By overturning Roe v. Wade as 'wrongly decided,' SCOTUS undermined 50 years of precedent, leaving no rights safe if precedent has no meaning."
If precedent still means anything, Bostock will remain the law and transgender workers will still have workplace rights under Title VII. Sadly, I am not optimistic.