16 Jun Judicial Backlash: An Erosion of 2SLGBTQIA+ Protections

June 2025 marks the tenth anniversary of the landmark decision Obergefell v. Hodges, legalizing same-sex marriage throughout the country. This ruling changed the lives of millions within the United States, recognizing gender and sexually diverse individuals and granting them the protections and privileges under the law they should have always received. Obergefell was a stunning triumph of decades of battle in the courts, and a codification of progress. However, as the tenth anniversary approaches, it is important to celebrate the success of Obergefell and the subsequent Bostock v. Clayton County, but also recognize the simultaneous erosion of 2SLGBTQIA+ protections from the highest bench.

It is hard not to overstate the impact of Obergefell at the time of its announcement. Same-gender marriage was illegal in many states, and that variance created an environment throughout the country that was ripe for discrimination against 2SLGBTQIA+ adults. Not allowing same sex couples to marry not only prevented them from receiving financial, healthcare and educational benefits, but also made their relationship, their love, somehow invalid in the eyes of the state. Obergefell turned this on its head. In addition, the decision served as a symbol of progress for the 2SLGBTQIA+ community, that a page had finally been turned in welcoming them from the forced outskirts of society. 2SLGBTQIA+ adults have recognized that and have spoken of the more welcoming environment of their sexual identity and sexual orientation in the aftermath of Obergefell. Massive legal decisions can have ramifications outside of their actual impact, and this decision was precisely this.


This progress was then continued in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County in 2020, where the Supreme Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 extended protections for employees on the basis of sexual orientation and sexual identity. Employers can no longer discriminate against employees for these protected characteristics, nor can workers be fired because they are members of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community. This case was a landmark decision that surprised onlookers by re-interpreting a statute to provide new protections. It helped address a serious issue for 2SLGBTQIA+ employees, as even though they were able to get married, and overall had seen an increase in some societal acceptance, this was not often reciprocated at work. Posting wedding pictures could be cause for termination, despite having just fought for it in the courts precisely for that right. Bostock was also seen as a serious advancement for the rights of 2SLGBTQIA+ Americans because it happened under a completely different court than the time of Obergefell. From 2015 to 2021, the court moved substantially to the right, where the deciding vote switched from a moderate justice, Anthony Kennedy, to the more conservative justice, Brett Kavanaugh. A victory for 2SLGBTQIA+ protections appeared unlikely, and Bostock defied those exceptions.

However, this metamorphosis of the court’s makeup mentioned above has also meant an erosion of protections for 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals, while at the same time further enabling discrimination against them. In recent years, there has been a rise in cases that revolve around the idea of religious freedom. Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission and 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis are examples of this, where artists refuse to create either a cake or a website for a same-sex wedding. The plaintiffs in these cases argue that they should not be forced to go against their sincerely held religious beliefs, that the government should be unable to compel such speech. So, to more aptly describe these cases, it is not centered around protecting religious freedom, but protecting the right to discriminate.

In this year’s session, the Court is hearing a case on whether parents are allowed to opt out of reading books that include 2SLGBTQIA+ characters. Unfortunately, but by no means surprisingly, the Court during its questioning seems to be siding with the parents who are anti-diversity. Again, this case is shielded under the guise of allowing parents to have a greater say in their education, and having the option to protect their children from content they don’t want them to see. Oftentimes, this protection is based on the parents’ religious values. The decision, in essence, may force public schools to tailor their education curriculum and content to Christian religious preferences. It is essential to note the hypocritical nature of these two branches of decisions, where the state does not have the power to compel a minority of people to speak against their sincerely held religious beliefs, while also at the same time making the state forcibly align with the religious beliefs of a minority of parents in education. The connecting element is the increased ability to discriminate against the 2SLGBTQIA+ community. People can be denied service at a business or have their own existence objected to being taught in schools, all under the farce of religious freedom.

While this decision has yet to be released, regardless of what the announcement turns out to be, it will not be the only decision in the upcoming years that erodes and backslides 2SLGBTQIA+ progress. The Court has already announced it will hear a case regarding a ban on conversion therapy, and Justice Clarence Thomas, in the concurring opinion for Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, argues that the Court should reconsider Obergefell under the majority logic in Dobbs that overturned Roe v. Wade.

When looking at all that has occurred in the past ten years following the Obergefell decision, it is hard not to see it as one step forward but then two steps backwards. Obergefell was supposed to be and still should be seen as a colossal step forward in accepting and protecting the 2SLGBTQIA+ community, but this unifying flagship decision has been slowly ripped apart by the subsequent Supreme Court decisions.

2SLGBTQIA+ individuals are now facing licenses to discriminate against them in businesses and schools, where their very existence somehow violates a First Amendment right of another. The Supreme Court had the possibility of being a real avenue of progress for the 2SLGBTQIA+ community, but the sudden surge of the right has not only shut that door completely, it has also made it a weapon against them.

As people around the country celebrate Pride this year, and the tenth anniversary of Obergefell, people should become more aware of the following decisions that have torn its progress to shreds. While not directly impacted by the population through elections, the court is aware of and wary of public sentiment. The court cannot win a political battle, and if people do collectively organize in opposition to these decisions, the highest bench may yet change its tune. We all must unite to uphold the court’s principles of equality and equal protection that it preached ten years ago. 2SLGBTQIA+ communities cannot only be the ones fighting for their rights, it must be a collective effort.

By Toby Keeler (he/him)

If you haven’t yet had the opportunity, make sure to order a copy of Elmer Dixon’s powerful memoir DIE STANDING: From Black Panther Revolutionary to Global Diversity Consultant and check out what others have been saying about Elmer and his story.

Check out these other opportunities to see what folks are saying about Elmer and his continued work.

• See Elmer speak at Stories from the Revolutions’ Front Lines at his keynote at TEDxUTulsa
• Listen to Elmer talk on NPR’s The Jefferson Exchange
• Read about Elmer’s story in a piece featured in The Seattle Times
• Listen to Elmer on The Medium