|
U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty in Louisiana stated in
his four-state injunction order that the new Title IX Final Rule framework
violates free speech, free exercise of religion, the spending clause, and “is
arbitrary and capricious.”
“…by allowing biological men who identify as a female
into locker rooms, showers, and bathrooms, biological females risk invasion
of privacy, embarrassment, and sexual assault,” wrote Judge Doughty. He
further noted that the new rules allow a person to gain access to opposite
sex spaces through a simple declaration that they have “changed gender
identities,” which ultimately “places biological females at risk.”
Judge Doughty noted that the Title IX Final Rule only
focuses on students with gender confusion while failing to address the rule’s
effect on other students.
“Title IX was intended to prevent biological women from
discrimination,” wrote Judge Doughty. “However, the Final Rule may likely
cause biological females more discrimination than they had before Title IX
was enacted.”
Even though Title IX was established in 1972 to create
equal educational opportunities for men and women, the Biden administration
argued the law’s language implies gender identity has always been protected.
According to Judge Doughty’s injunction, the Biden administration believes
the word “sex” has always included “gender identity” in its meaning.
Therefore, the new Title IX directs federally funded schools to allow
gender-confused individuals to use spaces that correspond with their gender
identity, join sex-specific organizations, construe “harassment” as a person
not using someone’s preferred pronouns, and imposes additional mandates
likely to result in substantial monetary costs. Failure to comply with the
new regulations could result in the federal government withholding taxpayer
dollars from educational institutions.
Judge Doughty determined Biden’s interpretation of “sex”
would “reverse the entire premise of Title IX.”
“Here, the Final Rule would render
meaningless…traditionally one-sex colleges, social fraternities and
sororities, voluntary youth organizations, one-sex youth service
organizations, beauty pageants, and the exemption that allows educational
facilities to maintain separate living facilities,” wrote Judge Doughty.
“Allowing this would allow decades of triumphs for women and men alike to go
down the drain, and this Court finds that Defendants’ [interpretation of
‘sex’] is meritless.”
Judge Doughty emphasized the “ordinary meaning” of “sex
discrimination” at the time of the Title IX law’s enactment “included only
biological males or females.”
Ultimately, Judge Doughty’s injunction stops executive
branch overreach. The injunction states decisions of “vast economic and
political significance,” such as the Title IX changes, are reserved only for
Congress under the “Major Questions Doctrine.”
“The Final Rule is not a clarification of existing laws –
it is a new law enacted by an administrative agency,” wrote Judge Doughty.
“Essentially, [the Final Rule] allows for one political ideology to dominate
the educational landscape while either silencing the other or calling the
other ‘harassment’ under these standards.”
The government has “no authority to rewrite Title IX and
decide major questions as the Final Rule does,” and it causes biological
women “immediate irreparable harm,” Judge Doughty concluded.
Chief Judge Danny Reeves in Kentucky, who barred the
Title IX update in six states, wrote that the result of inserting “subjective
gender identity” into the educational environment is “not only impossible to
square with Title IX” but also with “the broader protection of all students.”
Additionally, District Judge Reed O’Connor in Texas
determined public schools in Texas do not have to comply with the new rules
because the DOE failed to use proper constitutional procedure in interpreting
Title IX. He stated the framework of the new rules is an attempt to advance
“an agenda wholly divorced from the text, structure, and contemporary context
of Title IX.”
So far, other officials in Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Oklahoma, and South Carolina are also involved in lawsuits against Title IX
or have directed their state departments not to comply with the new federal
rules.
Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said,
“The radical rewrite of Title IX regulations eradicates privacy, safety, and
fairness for biological women and girls. The lawsuits against forcing gender
ideology in education have merit and the Biden administration’s obsession
with erasing women must stop.”
For more information about state laws protecting against
gender ideology, visit Liberty Counsel’s website here.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment