$(5$ points$)$: Read the following excerpt from uscourts.gov. Then, explain why you think the Supreme Court decided to hear the Bostock case.

$$Writs of Certiorari: Parties who are not satisfied with the decision of a lower court must petition the U$.$S$.$ Supreme Court to hear their case. The primary means to petition the court for review is to ask it to grant a writ of certiorari. This is a request that the Supreme Court order a lower court to send up the record of the case for review. The Court usually is not under any obligation to hear these cases, and it usually only does so if the case could have national significance, might harmonize conflicting decisions in the federal Circuit courts, and$/$or could have precedential value. In fact, the Court accepts $100-150$ of the more than $7,000$ cases that it is asked to review each year. Typically, the Court hears cases that have been decided in either an appropriate U$.$S$.$ Court of Appeals or the highest Court in a given state $($if the state court decided a Constitutional issue$).-$ from Supreme Court Procedures $|$ United States Courts $($uscourts$.$gov$)$Links to an external site.

$(10$ points$)$: Name and describe at least two cases used as precedent by the Court in their majority opinion. How did the Court use the case precedent to support its argument?

$(10$ points$)$: The Court states in the majority opinion in Section B: $$Ultimately$,$ the employers are forced to abandon the statutory text and precedent altogether and appeal to assumptions and policy. Most pointedly, they contend that few in $1964$ would have expected Title VII to apply to discrimination against homosexual and transgender persons. And whatever the text and our precedent indicate, they say, shouldn$$t this fact cause us to pause before recognizing liability?$$ The Court then goes on to respond to the question in the last sentence. Briefly summarize how the Court responds.