Comment by throwanem | Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwanem | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Yes, they'll have written a dissent that will be published alongside the majority opinion. I'm looking for it now, but since Reuters didn't bother to name the case, that's more complicated than it might be.

edit: Found it: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf

Kavanaugh's dissent (p. 145ff.) appears to revolve around it being not the proper province of the Supreme Court to decide the extent of Title VII, which, IANAL but that seems like a weak dodge. The whole point of the Supreme Court is to finally decide among competing interpretations of extant legislation.

Alito's and Thomas's dissent (pp. 38-144) appears to rely on the same strict-constructionist interpretation. Its Appendix A cites a stack of dictionaries. So there's that, I guess. Appendix D is an application for employment in the US armed forces. Presumably the body of the dissent explains what this is meant to prove, although I doubt I would feel myself enlightened for the effort of going back and finding that exegesis.

The majority opinion and dissents are rich sources of insight as to how the law in question will be applied as to how the decision could affect precedent in the future so I agree that the least the journalists could do is name the case so those of us who want to go to the source can look it up.

For example, the "legalization of gay marriage" case from a few years back contained phrases and platitudes about "love not being illegal" but the crux of the decision came down to the majority's opinion that a license issued in one state shouldn't be rejected in another. It didn't specify MARRIAGE license... which immediately made me comment to co-workers that in addition to requiring marriage licenses issued in any state had to be recognized in all 50 states, logically this ruling also stipulated that a concealed carry permit issued in any state would have to be recognized even in states that didn't issue concealed carry permits (Illinois at the time) as well as states in which it's very hard to get them (New York and California). To my knowledge, nobody has tested this by getting arrested in such a jurisdiction with such laws and challenging it citing Obergefell v. Hodges.

IF the resulting ruling was, indeed, based primarily on license eligibility cross-state line then wow, what a mislead but also what a possible challenge hole like you said.

I am not a lawyer™ but damn this would be a fascinating challenge. It almost implies state licenses exceed state lines to an almost federal level which seems pretty counterintuitive to me. I'd almost want to see a lawyer who has a state-level license to practice law challenge this in court to be eligible to use their state-level license in a different state.

If true, fascinating. This post represents only theory interest and no opinion of the top level topic other than this one:

Equality, EFF YEAH!

> It almost implies state licenses exceed state lines to an almost federal level which seems pretty counterintuitive to me.

I think it's closer to stating that a license to $ACTIVITY/$STATUS in one state should be recognized by a different state that also licenses that activity or status.

I'm also not a lawyer but I know the law is complicated enough that if you don't have a law degree you can't just "reason" about it until it makes sense, because it rarely does. Having a license to carry a firearm in Indiana allows you to carry that firearm in Indiana. Illinois would probably agree that that license allows you to carry a firearm in Indiana, and still put you in prison for carrying it on the wrong side of the Illinois-Indiana border. Are there specifics to this argument that would apply to firearms and not marriages?

I could see there being a differentiation in some legalese between an activity (carrying a firearm, hunting, operating an emergency vehicle, etc) and a status (being married, being a felon, etc).

Would this further extend to fishing or hunting licenses?

I think I one could say that fishing or hunting licenses only apply to certain locations - you are only able to use methods X in location Y. This out of state the license is valid but not useful.

Then the question is whether gun license is more like a marriage licet or a hunting license.

I believe that the state could argue a compelling interest in hunting/fishing licenses, since they affect resources spent by the state. It’s already legal for such licenses to be more expensive for out of state visitors, for a similar reason.

IANAL.

Well a marriage license is not actually a document certifying that you are married, it is a document granting you the right to get married in the state that issued it. You can't get a marriage license in Indiana and use it to get married in Illinois.

Once you do get married, though, the marriage itself becomes a public record of the state that would be protected under the Full Faith & Credit clause. But as I mentioned in my previous comment, Obergefell v. Hodges had absolutely nothing to do with marriage licensing and states recognizing each other's licenses.

Gay rights leading to gun rights, that would be facinating if only just to see the political fallout. I've always wondered how people would react if gun rights were tied to abortion rights somehow, and if political alignments would change.

I'm sorry but this is a gross misunderstanding/misrepresentation of what Obergefell v. Hodges was.

First of all, Obergefell was a ruling that the Due Process clause of the 5th Amendment and Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment extended protections to same-sex couples. Nothing to do with licenses.

You're thinking of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution, which was never ruled on with respect to gay marriage. We got close to it with US v. Windsor, but that ruling struck down the whole of DOMA under due process and equal protection, and did not create any kind of binding precedent with regards to the FF&C clause.

Secondly, the text of the FF&C clause is:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Your question is whether a concealed carry permit would be considered a "public Act, Record, or judicial Proceeding" of the issuing state, and I am telling you I don't think you could get a single court to agree with you that it was.

Alito and Thomas dissent is basically: the word "sex" does not include sexual orientation. So its not covered by the original Title VII. So if they want protection, they need a new law.

There is a strong legal argument to be made here. If one can simply identify as trans but the law doesn't provide a definition under which this would work, you're opening up ambiguity as to what the law even is and how it's to be used to protect someone claiming such an identification. This is a great case where a dissenting opinion is done for the protection of those seeking title as a protected class from those who will shoot the ambiguity loophole to deny the protection this decision purports to offer.

Except that the majority opinion doesn't rely on someone identifying as trans, only acting in a way not socially in accordance with their biological sex.

They also cite that Congress has attempted to amend the law several times (to date unsuccessfully), indicating that they recognize that the law as written does not cover the classes of sexual orientation or gender identity.

That is probably the best dissenting argument.

And the majority opinion is basically: if you fire a male employee for being with another man, its not a sexual orientation issue since the basis for your firing is that the employee is male. Thus, all protections apply

> not the proper province of the Supreme Court to decide the extent of Title VII, which, IANAL but that seems like a weak dodge. The whole point of the Supreme Court is to finally decide among competing interpretations of extant legislation.

Yeah that seems very strange. That's what the SCOTUS ... a great deal of the time.

Like many wide reaching principles, judicial conservatism is not evenly applied.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com