That's essentially what just happened in Texas v. EEOC.
A federal judge struck down part of the EEOC's 2024 harassment guidance, ruling that Title VII does not protect transgender workers from being misgendered, denied access to bathrooms aligned with their gender identity, or required to dress according to their sex assigned at birth.
According to the court, the EEOC exceeded its authority because Title VII is "rooted in a biological understanding of sex."
But here's the thing: the Supreme Court said the exact opposite. In Bostock v. Clayton County, SCOTUS held that discrimination against someone for being transgender is discrimination because of sex. That's not controversial. That's the law.
The idea that Bostock didn't reach pronouns, bathrooms, or dress codes is legal hair-splitting of the most transparent kind. Bostock was clear: LGBTQ+ employees are protected in all terms and conditions of employment. That includes being addressed by their chosen pronouns, using the restroom without harassment, and dressing according to their gender identity, all without becoming the workplace punchline.
This anti-trans panic is political theater, not legal necessity. Most employers already handle these issues with common sense, respect, and dignity. This ruling doesn't protect them—it invites confusion, litigation, and culture wars where basic human decency should be enough.
Title VII means what the Supreme Court says it means. Not what one district court judge wishes it meant.
And finally, remember: the law is a floor, not a ceiling. Just because a federal judge says the law doesn’t require you to do something doesn’t mean you can’t choose to do it anyway.