Worst Supreme Court Justice Makes Good Decision, For Once

“Pride month” is off to a good start. 

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously sided with Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, who claims her employer denied her a promotion and demoted her because she is straight. (RELATED: Reverse Discrimination Case Another Nail In The Coffin For DEI)

A quick recap of the case.

Ames has worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004. She argues that a lesbian supervisor passed her over for a promotion, despite good performance reviews, before hiring a lesbian candidate to fill the role. Ames was demoted, and a gay man filled her former position. 

When Ames pled her case in the lower courts, she faced a pernicious legal exception known as “background circumstances.”

“Ames is heterosexual . . . which means she must make a showing in addition to the usual ones for establishing a prima-facie case,” according to the Court of Appeals.

🚨 #BREAKING: The Supreme Court just ruled UNANIMOUSLY that “reverse discrimination” IS discrimination

In other words, discriminating against someone because they’re white and heterosexual IS illegal under the Civil Rights Act

I can’t believe this had to be litigated at the… pic.twitter.com/uawfgoC7MV

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) June 5, 2025

Background circumstances is a legal exception which saddles members of a “majority group” – like heterosexuals or whites or Christians – with a greater burden of proof for discrimination claims. The question facing the Supreme Court was whether Ames had to provide this additional proof. 

“The Sixth Circuit’s ‘background circumstances’ rule cannot be squared with the text of Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act] or our longstanding precedents,” Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote. “Our case law thus makes clear that the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group,” she concluded. 

It is mind-boggling this rule was ever legal in the first place. It’s even more surprising that Jackson, the court’s premier liberal, ruled in this manner. (RELATED: America’s Worst Supreme Court Justice Can’t Stand Colleagues’ Latest Decision)

Jackson was outraged when the Court struck down race-based college admission policies.

“With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces, ‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat,” she wrote. “But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life.”

Just days ago, Jackson seethed at her colleagues’ “botched” decision permitting the mass deportation of migrants shepherded into the country under a Biden-era loophole. She’s previously defended “gender affirming care” for minors, better termed child mutilation, arguing that prohibiting children from being disfigured in this manner may constitute sex discrimination. 

“A girl who doesn’t want to grow — grow breasts for whatever reason could — could — could or could not get it?” Jackson asked, in reference to so-called “puberty blockers.” It’s nice that a Supreme Court justice is so concerned with making sure girls can impede healthy physiological development if they’d like to do so.

Regardless of whatever spirited Jackson to make this decision, good riddance to “reverse discrimination.” Discrimination against heterosexuals, or whites, or Christians is just discrimination – plain and simple. Even Jackson can’t deny it.

Follow Natalie Sandoval on X: @NatalieIrene03