Matt Kacsmaryk shouldn't be a judge

[In It to Win It]

LawDork by Chris Geidner

U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk — the judge who tried to ban mifepristone nationwide in 2023 — issued a ruling this past week vacating parts of a federal anti-discrimination policy nationwide.

He did so because he doesn’t appear to believe transgender people are real and he believes that he is authorized to rule accordingly. In order to do so, Kacsmaryk all but ignored a key 2020 ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee, represents the anti-queer extremism of this moment, and his May 15 ruling in State of Texas and The Heritage Foundation v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is exactly what you would think Kacsmaryk’s ruling in a case with that name would be.

The EEOC, which is charged by federal law with enforcing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, issued “Enforcement Guidance” in 2024 setting forth its understanding of the state of the law under Title VII. As Kacsmaryk put it:

Relevant here, the Enforcement Guidance defines "sex" as "pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions' and sexual orientation and gender identity." … And it concludes that "sex-based harassment includes harassment based on sexual orientation or gender identity, including how that identity is expressed." … Specifically, sexual harassment includes "repeated and intentional use of a name or pronoun inconsistent with the individual's known gender identity (misgendering)" and "denial of access to a bathroom or other sex-segregated facility consistent with the individual's gender identity."

Texas and Heritage sued because they want to be able to discriminate against transgender people in the workplace. That’s what they want, plain and simple.

[RJ-MacReady]

1. well one good thing

Is if the SCOTUS does limit the ability of judges to issues nationwide injunction this guy will be neutered somewhat.