Western District of Louisiana Chief Judge Terry Doughty granted a temporary injunction in four states against President Joe Biden’s expansion of Title IX, which protects males in female sports and spaces and forces people to use someone’s preferred pronouns.
“For the reasons set forth herein, this Court finds the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits that the Defendants’ Final Rule is (1) contrary to law under the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), (2) violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, (3) violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, (4) violates the Spending Clause, and (5) is arbitrary and capricious in accordance with Title 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(A) of the APA,” wrote Doughty.
The Final Rule is 89 FR 33474 – Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance.
The injunction applies to Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Montana.
They argued:
(1) the Final Rule is contrary to law and exceeds statutory authority
(2) the Final Rule’s conditions violate the spending clause
(3) the Final Rule is an unconstitutional exercise of legislative power
(4) the Final Rule is arbitrary and capricious
The Department of Education conflated “sex” and “gender identity,” expanding protections to males who want to play female sports and be in female spaces.
Doughty pointed out the obvious: “Thus, Title IX was written and intended to protect biological women from discrimination. Such purpose makes it difficult to sincerely argue that, at the time of enactment, ‘discrimination on the basis of sex’ included gender identity, sex stereotypes, sexual orientation, or sex characteristics. Enacting the changes in the Final Rule would subvert the original purpose of Title IX: protecting biological females from discrimination.”
When the government enacted Title IX, “sex discrimination” obviously “included only discrimination against biological males and females.”
(I urge everyone to stop saying biological male or female. It’s female. There is only one female. There is only one male.)
Doughty tore apart the Department of Education for not considering the impacts it would have on females, leading to more discrimination they faced before Title IX.
I mean, that’s why we have Title IX:
These cisgender females must use the bathroom, undress, and shower in the presence of persons who may identify as females but still have male biological parts. Many of these students are minors. The DOE made no attempt to determine the effect on students having students who are biologically the opposite sex in their locker rooms and bathrooms. Instead, the DOE declared in the Final Rule, with no explanation, that transgender students do not pose a safety risk for cisgender students.
This line stuck out: “Many of these students are minors.”
Doughty agreed the plaintiffs would succeed on its claim the Final Rule violates the First Amendment, which includes withholding funding if the school limits a person’s ability to perform on the team he wants.
But the department would also punish a school if people didn’t use preferred pronouns:
Plaintiffs further urge that this standard chills and punishes protected speech under the First Amendment because it would compel staff and students to use whatever pronouns a person demands, even when those are contrary to grammar rules, reality, or political ideologies, and it further prohibits staff and students from expressing their own views on certain topics. Essentially, the harassment standard allows for one political ideology to dominate the educational landscape while either silencing the other or calling the other “harassment” under these standards.
Thus, Plaintiffs argue that the Final Rule conflicts with the “fixed star in our constitutional constellation” that the government cannot “prescribe what shall be orthodox” or “force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein,” W. Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943), and “may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable,” Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414 (1989).
Doughty concluded the standard “is obviously contrary to Title IX.” It’s crazy:
After that declaration is made, these schools are prohibited from questioning the sincerity of the new gender identity. The school cannot require any documentation to prove the sincerity of the gender change, i.e., doctor diagnosis. The school also must use the pronouns required by the student that changes gender. Allowing a biological male student to change to a female by simply declaring it, requiring no documentation of the change, and allowing the student to shower with cisgender females in the girls’ locker room goes beyond the scope of arbitrary and capricious.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“Stop saying biological male or female. It’s female. There is only one female. There is only one male”
Well, yeah. But the media, even purportedly conservative media has adopted the usage of “call me what I tell you to call me, suckahs” and routinely describemen playing dress-up “women”.
I refuse to use anything but female or male now. I don’t even like to use man, woman, girl, or boy. Male or female for me.
Yup. They can also not use the term “cisgender” when they mean normal.
Dames and Gents
Guys n Dolls
Guys and Broads
reflecting the gops stance
most conservative msm is lefty with just some pro american rhetoric thrown in
the left considers ovomit to be conservative
that says it all
I like to be in female spaces, but I do not expect government protection.
When invited, I’ve almost always liked being in female spaces. Regardless the form of government.
btw
the government protection is called
the courts system
If you re-read E Howard’s post , keeping in mind E Howard’s ofttimes witty use of English and double entendre , you might conclude that a different sort of protection was what he may have been referencing ; )
There are government-funded entities that hand out the necessary protection, should you wish to avail yourself of same.
Title IV?
Second to last paragraph.
Another example of why the Chevron standard should be gutted.
As should all agency rulemaking b/c in my (admittedly minority) opinion the Congress has long since unconstitutionally delegated their legislative power/responsibility to Executive branch agencies. That in turn makes political accountability several steps removed from voters v if Congress itself had to develop, mark up, follow the committee process, receive committee approval, get the proposal on the calendar, all before the proposal got an up/down in even one house of Congress. Not to mention the sheer scale of the current regulatory state is not possible with a Congress of 535 members, not even if we doubled or tripled the size of Congress.
how about a follow investigation with Lia the swimming Mermaid
and ask what his “love life” is like
correction:
follow up
“Lia the swimming Mermaid”
Very picturesque. Got a nice chuckle out of that.
Hey, nobody is reporting on the bump stock bombshell?
Come on, LI.
It’s Yuge!
Henry,
It is a very important decision BUT in reality this result should not have been such a long tortured road to arrive at the correct final decision. A bump stock isn’t a full auto nor does installation or utilization of a bump sock transform a semi auto into a full auto. ATF lacks the jurisdiction to do what they (and the Trump WH) tried to do here and we all knew it. The only question was would propaganda by gun grabbers succeed despite the Constitution. I am very tired of playing defense in the lawfare games.
That said the 6/3 decision is win and we should always welcome a win even when the question really is not debatable.
Meh. Today’s people are so stupid that common sense takes a decade to percolate. It now takes people ten years to “discover” that Nigerian princes are frauds, COVIDiots are frauds AND tyrants, Democrats are lying frauds, there are only two sexes, woke macht broke, blacks are disproportionately imprisoned because they disproportionately commit crime, and a while bunch of other shit that the few intelligent people grok in about ten minutes. Same as the lawfare judges take five to ten years arguing that something that is clearly unconstitutional is perfectly acceptable, before SCOTUS finally puts a stake in it (if ever).
True….which is why we need to stop the BS growth of gov’t before it festers, grows larger and even more dangerous. As Fife said ‘nip it in the bud’. It simultaneously amazes and disgusts me how many otherwise seemingly intelligent and knowledgeable people refuse to accept that.
The decision isn’t so much about the stocks, it’s about a government agency overstepping it’s authority and arbitrarily redefining something to ban it. The ATF needs to be put out of business along with the EPA, DOE and so on. You were right in a different comment about Congress now complaining over something they did to themselves which is delegate their authority to 3 letter agencies accountable to no one.
Unconstitutionally delegated… to be precise. Either ‘All legislative power shall be vested in a Congress…’ means what it plainly states or it doesn’t. If Congress can delegate to the Executive Branch portions or degrees of its legislative power then where is the precise limit? There isn’t one so logically under the ‘delegation is totes ok theory’ Congress could simply hold a vote on day one of the Congressional session and abdicate their responsibilities and duties granting the Executive Branch 100% of their legislative power and go home. According to this theory Congress could supplement that by placing all judicial power of the ‘inferior’ courts to SCOTUS in the hands of the Executive as well. I don’t believe the founders had that in mind when they deliberately created three separate branches of gov’t, each with a portion of the power of the ‘Crown’ in order to keep any particular branch from reining with nearly unchecked power.
Yes a govt agency exceeding the authority granted is an issue. However the basis for the decision of the agency in doing so was flawed on its face. X does not equal Y and cannot and never will no matter what rulemaking alchemy some agency is delusional enough to seek to employ in order to disregard that reality. Wish casting by an ideological, partisan bureaucracy is always flawed from the outset IMO.
Yes, there is. SCOTUS has for at least 200 years said that “a general provision may be made, and power given to those who are to act under such general provisions to fill up the details.” In practice that means Congress must set an “intelligible principle” by which it can be objectively determined whether a regulation has or hasn’t been authorized.
So Congress could say “A tax is hereby enacted on tomatoes, and the IRS shall set the rate in the range of 0% to 5%, and shall come up with a precise definition of tomatoes”. This is an intelligent principle because it has clear limits; the IRS can’t set the rate at 5.1%, and it can’t extend it to something that the courts determine is clearly not a tomato. If the IRS decides that for the purpose of the tax a tomatillo is a tomato, the courts must decide whether it’s “clearly not” one.
That’s what you and I say, but the ATF said the opposite. That was precisely the point in dispute — the only point in dispute. So it was not enough for the plaintiffs to simply assert it, they had to prove it, and how do you do that? By following that “long tortured road”.
You seem to be saying that the plaintiffs shouldn’t have had to prove anything but simply to assert their case and automatically win; that the justices shouldn’t have had to consider any evidence but simply to repeat the plaintiffs’ assertion. That would be a classic case of begging the question, and it would not be justice.
Bump stocks are Yuge! That why in Georgia they’re called “Fani stocks”.
What a pig
Plaintiffs further urge that this standard chills and punishes protected speech under the First Amendment because it would compel staff and students to use whatever pronouns a person demands, even when those are contrary to grammar rules, reality, or political ideologies, and it further prohibits staff and students from expressing their own views on certain topics. Essentially, the harassment standard allows for one political ideology to dominate the educational landscape while either silencing the other or calling the other “harassment” under these standards.
The above reminded me of this:
“The Nazis had a word for this: Gleichschaltung. This was the process by which they established a system of total control over all aspects of German society, from the economy and trade associations to the media, culture and education.
“Under Gleichschaltung, people were required to greet each other with “Heil Hitler!” instead of “Guten Tag!” Nowadays they are required to put pronouns and BLM in their email signature. If you hadn’t figured this out already — the point of putting pronouns in your email signature isn’t to denote your gender, it is to identify non-compliant enemies of the state.”
“Chris” writing on his “Karlstack”
https://karlstack.substack.com/p/his-name-was-seth-smith
5/28/22