In a rare moment of judicial clarity, the Supreme Court, yes, that Supreme Court, just handed down a 9-0 smackdown to the idea that you need to bend over backward to prove discrimination if you happen to be straight and not ticking off a box on the progressive identity checklist. The case? Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services. The ruling? Unanimous. The impact? Potentially massive—and a long-overdue course correction.
Let’s break this down. Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004. After years of loyal service, in 2019 she applied for a promotion—and was passed over in favor of a less-experienced lesbian woman. Later, she found herself demoted and replaced by a gay man. Naturally, she suspected that her sexual orientation might just have something to do with the curious hiring and promotion decisions unfolding around her. So she did the unthinkable: she filed a Title VII discrimination claim. Cue the pearl-clutching from the woke legal establishment.
🚨 BREAKING: Supreme Court UNANIMOUSLY sides with the STRAIGHT WOMAN in Ohio who says she was discriminated against in favor of LGBTQ people for a job – AP
Marlean Ames said she was passed over for a promotion, then demoted, because she was straight. Both positions were given to… pic.twitter.com/yUfS9iRktv
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) June 5, 2025
Now here’s where things get spicy. The Sixth Circuit had put in place a little legal invention known as the “background circumstances” rule, which basically meant if you were part of a “majority group” (read: straight, white, male, Christian—take your pick), you had to jump through extra hoops to prove you were discriminated against. Imagine that. You’re allegedly protected by the same law as everyone else, but suddenly you’ve got to provide extra proof because… you’re not a member of a trendy victim class? Talk about “equal protection” with an asterisk.
🚨 BREAKING: Supreme Court UNANIMOUSLY sides with Marlean Ames in Ohio who says she was discriminated against in favor of LGBTQ people for a job. Our CEO @mark_trammell mentions her case on @DrPhil with our client Brooks Warden who’s also bringing a discrimination case to SCOTUS. pic.twitter.com/BOWoXNNjBL
— Center for American Liberty (@Liberty_Ctr) June 5, 2025
Enter the Supreme Court, stage right. In a refreshingly rational opinion written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson—yes, a Biden appointee no less—the Court obliterated the background circumstances rule with a single stroke. Jackson wrote, “Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority group plaintiffs.” Translation: discrimination is discrimination, folks. Whether you’re gay, straight, black, white, male, female—if you’ve been unfairly treated based on a protected characteristic, you get your day in court without needing to write a novel justifying your existence first.
Of course, the media will play this as some narrow procedural matter—and sure, the Court technically punted the rest of Ames’ case back to the lower court. They didn’t say she definitely wins, just that she’s entitled to be judged by the same rules as anyone else. How dare she ask for fairness in today’s DEI-obsessed bureaucratic culture, right?
Also of note: while the Justice Department and a couple of constitutional watchdogs like the Pacific Legal Foundation sided with Ames, groups like the NAACP Legal Defense Fund lined up behind Ohio’s defense. That tells you everything you need to know about how invested the left is in preserving a tiered system of justice—one where fairness takes a back seat to intersectional allegiance charts.
This ruling should send a message to employers and government agencies playing favorites in the name of ‘progress’. You don’t get to discriminate just because the target doesn’t fit the current activist narrative. And maybe, just maybe, the rest of the judiciary will take the hint and start doing their jobs instead of social engineering from the bench.
So here we are, witnessing the radical idea that laws apply equally to everyone—actually being enforced. Who knew? Maybe the Constitution still has a little fight left in it.
