This essay analyzes how the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County on sex discrimination applies to Harvard University’s lawsuit with the Final Clubs. Other Supreme Court cases supporting the right to intimate association for private clubs are also considered in the context of the lawsuit. Ultimately, Bostock determines that members of the Final Club are protected from sanctions, reaffirming their right to intimate association. The issue first takes context within the history of Harvard, the Final Clubs, and their recent relations, most importantly Harvard’s sanctions and the subsequent lawsuit. Next, this analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court case Bostock v. Clayton County establishes the concept of “but-for” causation for sex-based discrimination. This standard is then applied to Harvard’s case to determine that Harvard’s sanctions did indeed constitute sex discrimination. Harvard’s final clubs are also compared to and contrasted with other private clubs, such as Princeton’s eating clubs and Boston’s Somerset Club, and Harvard’s lawsuit is further evaluated according to legal proceedings regarding private clubs, such as Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees and Board of Directors, Rotary International v. Rotary Club of Duarte. These cases provide the right of private clubs to intimate association, and comparisons to other clubs allow specific conclusions to be drawn about when a private club has that right. Finally, the discussion explores the implications of these findings for unrecognized student organizations and students’ personal relationships more broadly.