William & Mary Law Review


Peter Quinn


After a brief background on Bostock [v. Clayton County] in Part I, the bulk of this Note seeks to examine Justice Alito’s Bostock dissent and its potential future usefulness for LGBTQ+ advocates. Part II will analyze Justice Alito’s dissent and Appendix C, arguing that his concerns about Bostock’s consequences across other federal statutes fall into three primary categories of usefulness. The remaining Parts will survey these categories, including the “small potatoes” in Part III, the “blockbusters” in Part IV, and the “under-the-radar” areas in Part V. Part V takes particular notice of potential applications of Bostock’s pro-LGBTQ+ approach to federal statutes that may fall outside of policy areas that typically engender advocates’ attention. It is this author’s hope that such a categorization can help scholars and advocates accurately gauge the impact of Bostock and the veracity of Justice Alito’s complaints. More importantly, however, this categorization will allow advocates to prioritize policy areas that have been largely overlooked as important potential battlegrounds to further expand LGBTQ+ legal protections post-Bostock.

This abstract has been taken from the author's introduction.