Why I'm Still Thinking About These 3 SCOTUS Rulings, and Why You Should Be, Too

On June 30, in a major ruling on LGBTQ+ rights, the Supreme Court entitled businesses that sell so-called "expressive" goods to refuse services to LGBTQ+ people, regardless of whether they live in a state with nondiscrimination laws in place.

The specific case they heard involved Lorie Smith, a Christian web designer from Colorado who doesn't support same-sex marriage and wanted the ability to decline work for queer weddings. Her position was a challenge of Colorado's public accommodation law, claiming the state was unconstitutionally forcing her to serve patron equality, despite her beliefs.

In a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court sided with Smith, creating a foundation for state-sanctioned discrimination.

The same week, SCOTUS also killed President Joe Biden's student-debt relief plan and gutted affirmative-action protections. Taken together, these three rulings touch nearly every American: queer and trans communities, the approximately 43.5 million people with federal student loans, and the millions of current and prospective students of color.

But while much has been said about how each of these decisions affects the specific communities involved — LGBTQ+ people in the web-design case; students of color in the affirmative-action case; low-income debt holders in the student-debt case — what I can't stop thinking about is how these rulings work together and across identities to affect all but the wealthiest, whitest, and most powerful people in the US.

Taken collectively, these decisions will all further exclude already marginalized groups from economic and educational opportunities, as well as access to public life. This could have generational ramifications, some of which are difficult to predict and some of which aren't.

Take the student-debt relief decision. While all people with federal student loans are affected by this decision, some communities will be hit especially hard. LGBTQ+ people, for instance, have a disproportionate amount of student-loan debt: about $112,600 on average, which is $16,000 more than the general population, according to a 2018 survey by Lending Tree. The same report showed that queer and trans people are also more likely than the general population to make less than $50,000 a year, which means they're tasked with paying down higher loans using smaller salaries.

Student loans are also a source of racial disparity, as Black college graduates owe an average of $25,000 more in debt than their white counterparts, according to the Education Data Initiative.

Biden's Education Department has completed a new repayment plan for federal student loans, one that has a different legal foundation than the plan that was struck down by the Supreme Court and that experts say is unlikely to face a similar legal challenge.

But the other decisions made by the Supreme Court last month don't have similar Plan Bs and also stand to impact already vulnerable communities in extreme ways.

The affirmative-action decision, for instance, will have huge repercussions on people of color. The disadvantage only compounds when considering the intersection of race, gender, and queerness. The ruling will also result in fewer Black queer students in higher education, predicted Leslie Hall, Human Rights Campaign's HBCU program director, in an interview with Advocate. Hall also stressed how the decision will affect historically Black colleges and universities, which will be under an increased strain to take on more students.

The web-design decision, too, may affect more than the LGBTQ+ community. While the ruling deals with a narrow set of circumstances (same-sex wedding services in small art businesses), it further weakens the public accommodation nondiscrimination laws — which exist in just 29 states in the first place — that are meant to protect queer and trans people from discrimination, such as refusal of service or denied entry in public places.

The SCOTUS ruling asserts that personal bigotry is reason enough to deny basic services to marginalized populations and could embolden other business owners to deny services and discriminate against anyone whose life and identity they don't agree with.

Many supporters of the SCOTUS rulings argue that gay and lesbian couples can simply patronize other businesses, be it web designers or bakers. But this argument misses the point entirely. These cases undermine queer people's rights to access public life. Like the slew of recent anti-trans legislation targeting bathroom use, conduct and curriculum in public schools, and access to basic healthcare, rulings like this undermine LGBTQ+ people's ability to live freely, pursue accountability for discrimination and harassment, and exercise their own constitutional rights.

The point, then, is to restrict public life for trans and queer folks by making something as simple as a website, using the bathroom, or going to the doctor so humiliating, people would rather be invisible.

Creating a legal foundation for discrimination harms everyone, particularly members of communities that are already under attack. As GLAD Legal Advocates and Defenders wrote in 2018, following a similar Supreme Court ruling involving a bakery that refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding, "It is not just communities that have been historically excluded from public life, which stand to benefit from robust public accommodation nondiscrimination laws. Inclusive public spaces are necessary to form a common, civic society — the foundation of a healthy democracy."

Each of these recent three rulings will have disproportionately negative effects on all marginalized groups, including LGBTQ+ people, people of color, and low-income people. And each ruling represents more of the status quo — protecting people with power.

Part of why these rulings are so stunning and frustrating is that there is very little political recourse. Supreme Court justices are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate; the public doesn't vote for them directly, and they're appointed for life, so in many ways, they're removed from the democratic process — and, as a result, often insulated from public accountability.

Of course, that means presidential and Senate elections are critically important in determining who is making these rulings and what they mean for the country.

But historically, protests and civil disobedience have also been shown to influence the court and can have an immediate, tangible effect. After the recent anti-abortion ruling, for instance, thousands marched on the White House and pressured state governments to defend local abortion rights.

On the individual level, understanding how the Supreme Court works, engaging with your community, and talking openly about what, exactly, these rulings mean for the people they most effect is a start.

It can be tempting to focus on how high-visibility rulings and legislation impact the people who are directly involved. But it's also essential to look at all the ramifications of these decisions and legislation. Very few people are unaffected by rulings that gut reproductive rights, affirmative action, student-loan relief, public amenities, and civil rights. Therefore, none of us should remain silent about them.