“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who was nominated by Donald Trump to the district court for the Northern District of Texas, issued a ruling that struck down nationwide Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidance protecting transgender workers from employment discrimination. The May 2025 decision was in State of Texas v EEOC
What has happened in this case?
Following the Supreme Court decision that Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on gay or transgender status in Bostock v Clayton County, the EEOC promulgated nationwide enforcement guidance on the issue. The State of Texas and the Heritage Foundation filed a lawsuit in federal court in Texas seeking to invalidate the guidance, claiming that it goes beyond Title VII.
The case was filed in the Northern District of Texas in the Amarillo division, so that it would be heard by far right Trump appointee Matthew Kacsmaryk. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment to resolve the case.
How did Judge Kacsmaryk rule and why is it harmful?
Kacsmaryk issued a 34-page opinion largely granting the Texas-Heritage motion and ruled that the EEOC guidance went beyond Title VII and was invalid nationwide. Although the EEOC may well appeal the ruling, it clearly harms gay and transgender employees and undermines the Bostock case. LGBTQ analyst Chris Geidner wrote a critical analysis of the decision.
A key basis for Kacsmaryk’s ruling was his view that Bostock was extremely narrow and “cabined” to the issue of whether firing someone because they are gay or transgender violates Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination. According to him, the EEOC guidance “contravenes” Title VII by “expanding the definition of ‘sex’ beyond the biological binary and requiring employers to accommodate an employee’s dress, bathroom or pronoun requests.”
As Geidner put it, the result is that even the same employers who cannot fire someone because they are transgender can now subject them “to non-stop dehumanizing abuse in the workplace” because harassment based on transgender status is not illegal under Title VII. As National Women’s Law Center stated, the ruling is “an outrage and blatantly at odds with Supreme Court precedent” in Bostock and “will make it harder for LGBTQIA+ workers to enforce their rights and experience a workplace free from harassment.” In addition, the case illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.