Meaning: This quote is from a dissenting opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia in the case of Landgraf v. USI Film Products, a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 1994. In his dissent, Scalia expressed his disagreement with the majority's interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The quote reflects Scalia's concern that the Court's decision had effectively transformed Title VII from a guarantee that race or sex will not be the basis for discrimination into a guarantee that they often will be, indicating his strong belief in the original intent of the legislation.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It is one of the most significant pieces of civil rights legislation in the United States and has had a profound impact on promoting equal opportunity and diversity in the workplace. The law applies to employers with 15 or more employees, including federal, state, and local governments.

Scalia's dissent in the Landgraf case sheds light on his strict adherence to textualism, a judicial philosophy that emphasizes interpreting laws based on their original meaning and the plain language of the statute. In his view, the majority's interpretation of Title VII deviated from the statute's original purpose and meaning, leading to a distortion of its intended protections against discrimination.

The quote is significant because it captures Scalia's concern about judicial overreach and the potential erosion of legal protections against discrimination. It reflects his commitment to upholding the original intent of statutory law and his opposition to what he perceived as judicial activism.

The context of the quote within the Landgraf case is important to understanding Scalia's position. The case centered on the retroactive application of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which amended Title VII to provide for compensatory and punitive damages in cases of intentional discrimination. The majority held that the amendments could be applied retroactively to pending cases, while Scalia dissented, arguing that such retroactive application violated fundamental principles of statutory interpretation and constitutional due process.

Scalia's dissent in the Landgraf case is consistent with his broader judicial philosophy, which prioritized fidelity to the original text and meaning of laws. His concern about the potential dilution of Title VII's protections reflects a broader debate within the legal community about the proper role of the judiciary in interpreting and applying statutes.

In conclusion, Justice Scalia's quote from his dissent in the Landgraf case encapsulates his commitment to preserving the original intent and protections of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It reflects his concern about judicial interpretation that deviates from the plain language of the law and the potential consequences for anti-discrimination protections in the workplace. The quote serves as a reminder of the ongoing significance of Title VII and the importance of interpreting and applying it in a manner consistent with its original purpose.