Jason Pierceson, professor of political science in the School of Politics and International Affairs at the University of Illinois Springfield, has published a new article analyzing how the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs decision, which overturned the constitutional right to abortion, is influencing federal judges’ approaches to transgender rights.

The article was published Nov. 13 in Politics, Groups and Identities, a journal of the Western Political Science Association. As part of his research, Pierceson reviewed more than 30 federal cases as well as related case documents, oral arguments and materials, including Project 2025. His analysis examines how some conservative judges have cited Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization to narrow the legal protections outlined in Bostock v. Clayton County, the 2020 Supreme Court ruling that extended federal employment protections to LGBTQ workers.

“The consequence of judges marginalizing Bostock v. Clayton County, a case finding gender identity-based discrimination to be prohibited in the workplace, is that the federal courts are taking an increasingly anti-transgender rights stance, following the agenda of social conservatives as reflected in documents such as Project 2025. Indeed, the paper shows that conservative judges are deeply connected to this movement and carrying out its aims,” Pierceson said.

Following the Bostock decision, federal judges across ideological lines initially relied on the ruling to protect transgender plaintiffs. Pierceson finds that this pattern changed in late 2022 when some conservative judges began limiting the scope of Bostock by relying on Dobbs and, in some instances, Geduldig v. Aiello, a 1974 ruling that upheld the exclusion of pregnancy from disability insurance coverage.

In his conclusion, Pierceson writes that developments since Dobbs show how closely aligned arguments against transgender rights have become within conservative legal circles, including at the appellate level. He notes that this shift illustrates a growing connection between economic and social conservatism and that the influence of anti-LGBTQ positions within the broader movement has become more visible in federal judicial decision-making after Dobbs.