The EEOC accused my business of discrimination because of sex.

That's Tom Ross from a prepared statement.

A term the agency wanted to change to include gender identity.

But sex and gender identity are very different things.

He doesn't talk to the media and he agreed only to read straight off that statement.

Ross is a businessman in Michigan who owns and operates a funeral home.

The government sued him for sex discrimination,

even though he followed the letter of the law.

Our job as judges, of course, is to interpret the words consistent with their ordinary meaning at the time that Congress enacted the statute.

That's Justice Neil Gorsuch announcing the opinion in a 2018 railroad case.

Back to Tom Ross. He recalls the purpose of the three branches of government.

And only Congress, not courts or federal agencies, can change the law.

Again Justice Gorsuch, this time with the opinion in a trucking case.

After all, if judges could freely infuse old statutory terms with entirely new and different

meetings, we would risk amending statutes outside the legislative process,

the Constitution commands.

Businesses must be able to rely on what the law it is at the time they make business decisions.

It would seem that these two men vigorously agree.

We would risk to upsetting reliance interests

by subjecting people today to different rules than they enjoyed when the statute was passed.

Different businesses, a funeral home, a railroad, a trucking firm.

Employers shouldn't be held liable simply for following what the law says.

...