The lower courts followed the Eleventh Circuit's past precedent that Title VII did not cover employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a similar question of Title VII discrimination relating to transgender persons.

§ 2000e-2(a)(1), states that it is illegal to discriminate in any hiring or employment practices based on an "individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin".

[12] The following year, the EEOC filed its first pair of test cases in federal court arguing that sexual orientation is protected by Title VII.

[13] Gerald Bostock was an employee of Clayton County, within the Atlanta metropolitan area, as an official for its juvenile court system since 2003, with good performance records through the years.

The county sought to dismiss the claim of prohibited discrimination—the District Court agreed to dismiss, on the basis of the precedent established in the 2017 case Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital decided by the Eleventh Circuit (of which the District is part), which held that the Civil Rights Act's Title VII does not include protection against discrimination towards sexual orientation.

Bostock petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari on the question of whether sexual orientation is covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Between these cases, as well as prior Circuit court decisions, there had been a split of opinions on whether sexual orientation discrimination is covered by Title VII.

Over thirty-six briefs were filed in support of Bostock and the estate of Zarda, including one signed by over 200 major corporations such as Amazon, the Walt Disney Company, and Coca-Cola, that asserted that it would not be "unreasonably costly or burdensome" for them to accept sexual orientation as a protected class under Title VII.

[25][26] Over 25 briefs were filed to support Clayton County and Altitude Express; among them, the U.S. Department of Justice argued that sexual orientation was not covered, but asserted, "Congress of course remains free to legislate in this area; and employers, including governmental employers, remain free to offer greater protections to their workers than Title VII requires.

[29] Andrée Sophia Blumstein, the Solicitor General of Tennessee, predicted that the Supreme Court would make a consequential decision in this case because of the sensitivity of the issue and the Constitutional implications.

[30] In an article before oral arguments, Blumstein stated that the decision would determine whether the Supreme Court would remain solely as the "expositor of the law" or become the policymakers alongside Congress.

[31] In a 6–3 decision, the Court held that Title VII protections pursuant to § 2000e-2(a)(1) did extend to cover sexual orientation and gender identity.

"[32] Gorsuch's decision also alluded to concerns that the judgment may set a sweeping precedent that would force gender equality on traditional practices.

In his dissent, Alito asserted that at the time of the crafting of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 the concepts of sexual orientation and transgender identity would have been unknown, and thus Congress's language should not be implied to cover these facets.

He concluded by acknowledging that Millions of gay and lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to achieve equal treatment in fact and law ...

Sarah Kate Ellis, the CEO of GLAAD, stated that the "Court's historic decision affirms what shouldn't have even been a debate: LGBT Americans should be able to work without fear of losing jobs because of who they are".

[36] The Human Rights Campaign praised the decision, with the HRC President, Alphonso David, stating: "This is a landmark victory for LGBT equality.

[41] Legal scholars saw the ruling as having an impact beyond employment, extending to areas such as education, health care, housing and financial credit.

American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Joshua Block said, "[a]ll of the Trump administration's actions ['curtailing protections for transgender Americans'][42] have been built around this assertion that Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act] and Title IX [of the Education Amendments of 1972] provide no protections to LGBTQ people ... [i]t's an Achilles' heel that's been built into every single thing they've done.

[44] Dan McLaughlin of the National Review postulated that Dixiecrat Howard W. Smith's insertion of the word "sex" in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had inadvertently protected sexual orientation and gender identity from employment discrimination.

[46] Some legal scholars have expressed disappointment that the Supreme Court did not define the terms "transgender" or "gay" in its ruling, leaving doubt about who is covered by them.

[50] Republican Senator Rob Portman of Ohio stated that the ruling was "a big deal" and emphasized that people should not be fired simply because of their sexual orientation.

[54][55] On January 20, 2021, President Joseph Biden issued Executive Order 13988,[56] which built on Bostock v. Clayton County by ensuring the federal government interprets Title VII as protecting against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

He argued that the majority opinion went beyond the plain language of the law to claim that its intent in 1964 covered sexual orientation and gender identity as part of the meaning of "sex" in the statute.

"[63][60] In a Slate article, Mark Joseph Stern wrote that Gorsuch's argument "rests on textualism" and described it as "remarkably dismissive" of Alito's dissenting opinion.

[38][54] The religious journal First Things editor R. R. Reno called the opinion unworkable sophistry, comparing it to Dred Scott v. Sandford: "Historians may look back and judge Bostock the twenty-first-century analogue to Dred Scott, the Supreme Court decision that imposed the Southern slave regime on the entire country and contributed to the intolerable contradictions that led to the Civil War.