Soros-Funded ACLU ($37,359,845) Litigating SCOTUS Case Could Redefine Sex

October 9th, 2019 3:56 PM

Another Supreme Court LGBTQ-agenda showdown is in the works. A crucial case dealing with whether the term “sex” in The Civil Rights Act of 1964 can be expanded to include “sexual orientation” is being spearheaded by the George Soros-funded American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

The defendant, Tom Harris of Harris Funeral Homes, had been sued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for enforcing sex-specific dress codes in accordance with federal law, according to Alliance Defending Freedom (“ADF”). Such a redefinition of “sex” as federal law describes it, should “not be taken lightly,” ADF argued.

It continued:

“[R]edefining ‘sex’ violates the separation of powers put in place by our Founding Fathers. Under the Constitution, unelected government officials cannot rewrite federal law – only Congress has that power.” If redefinition is allowed to happen, ADF attorneys posited that it would “‘cause problems in employment law, reduce bodily-privacy protections for everyone, and erode equal opportunities for women and girls, among many other consequences.’”

Soros gave $37,359,845 to the ACLU from 2000-2014. In November of 2014, his Open Society Foundations also gave a $50-million grant to the ACLU for the alleged purpose of ending mass incarceration via cutting the national prison population by 50 percent.

The Washington Post noted June 8, 2018, “In the United States, the Open Society spends $150 million a year financing groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood.”

During the 2016 election, Soros “gathered with friends to watch returns” at his Fifth Avenue duplex, of which ACLU executive director Anthony Romero was one of the invited guests, according to The Post.

The ACLU has developed a record for being notoriously left-wing. It spent $25 million attacking Republican candidates for Congress in 2018 “for ensuring only citizens are able to vote, for supporting travel restrictions, for opposing abortion, and for opposing unfettered illegal immigration,” according to Influence Watch. The ACLU, according to Politico Jan. 6, 2018, was aiming to become the “hub of the anti-Trump movement” as well as the “hub of liberal political activism.”

Former Connecticut Democrat senator Joe Lieberman excoriated the ACLU in 2018 for shifting from its “non-partisan” positions:


“[M]any of the group’s donors are demanding that the ACLU use its expanded coffers to bring the fight against the [Trump] administration’s agenda, not just in the courts but in the political process as well. The ACLU has chosen to become a direct actor in partisan elections, morphing what was once a nonpartisan organization into what looks like another advocacy group on the left.”


The latest court case, Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC., is one of two related cases before SCOTUS “involving whether Title VII bans discrimination based on sexual orientation.”

Washington Post syndicated columnist George Will criticized the case Oct. 4, 2019, stating that “It’s not the Supreme Court’s job to say whether ‘sex’ includes sexual orientation.” Will referenced an earlier decision on a similar 2017 case regarding redefining “sex” in federal law by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. The majority in the 2017 case “held, in effect, that Congress can now be said to have proscribed such discrimination without intending to.” “Dissenting judges rejected this conclusion because it empowers courts to do what Congress clearly did not do but easily could do,” Will noted.

The case before SCOTUS could presumably be argued along the same lines of interpreting what a Congressional statute actually says versus what it did not say but could have said.

Forbes Magazine cited the Soros-funded Human Rights Campaign in 2018, which stated, “Employers can legally implement gender-specific dress codes as long as they are not arbitrarily enforced and do not favor or affect one gender over another.”

This case occurred approximately four years after SCOTUS’ controversial Obergefell decision to redefine marriage in 2015.