U.S. District Court’s Eastern District of Kentucky, Northern Division Chief Judge Danny Reeves issued a temporary injunction in the Tennessee v. Cardona case, halting the implementation of President Joe Biden’s Title IX rewrite.
This decision affects Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Last week, Western District of Louisiana Chief Judge Terry Doughty granted a temporary injunction in Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Montana.
Reeves started the order with a fact:
There are two sexes: male and female.
Biden’s administration doesn’t define sex in the rewrite so they can equate it with “gender identity” to apply Title IX to males who want to compete in female sports and invade female spaces.
How about some more facts…like why Title IX exists:
More than fifty years ago, Congress recognized that girls and women were not receiving educational opportunities that were equal to those afforded to their male counterparts. It attempted to remedy this historical inequity through the passage of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, commonly known as Title IX. And for more than fifty years, educational institutions across the country risk losing federal funding if they fail to comply with the dictates of the statute.
The case includes a West Virginia high school female athlete who boycotted a track event instead of competing against a male. Before that event, the male displaced her many times. He even prevented her from competing in the conference championship.
“As they correctly argue, the new rule contravenes the plain text of Title IX by redefining “sex” to include gender identity, violates government employees’ First Amendment rights, and is the result of arbitrary and capricious rulemaking,” wrote Reeves.
Reeves granted the order because he believed they would succeed on the case’s merits, suffering immediate and irreparable harm.
“If the new rule is allowed to take effect on August 1, 2024, all plaintiffs will suffer immediate and irreparable harm,” stated Reeves. “Because the plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits of their claims, and the public interest and equities highly favor their position, the new rule will be enjoined, and its application stayed.”
The administration not defining sex could be its downfall. Reeves said without the definition, the court has to use the definition of sex used when the government enacted Title IX:
Because “sex” is not defined within the statute, the Court looks to its ordinary meaning at the time Title IX was enacted. Wis. Cent. Ltd. v. United States, 585 U.S. 274, 277 (2018); see Keen v. Helson, 930 F.3d 799, 802-04 (6th Cir. 2019) (noting that, “[w]hen interpreting the words of a statute, contemporaneous dictionaries are the best place to start”). At that time, the term ordinarily was understood to mean “the character of being either male or female.” See The American College Dictionary 1109 (1970); see also Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2081 (1971) (“one of the two divisions of organic esp. human beings respectively designated male or female”); Webster’s Dictionary 442 (1972) (“the sum total of characteristics, structural and functional, which distinguish male and female organisms, esp. with regard to the part played in reproduction”); Funk & Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary 1231 (1973) (“Either of two divisions, male and female, by which organisms are distinguished with reference to the reproductive functions”); Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (1974) (“either of two divisions of organisms distinguished respectively as male or female”).
Reeves also pointed out the absurdity behind the ability to cry harassment if someone uses the wrong pronouns:
It is unclear how the Government’s articulated position can be seen as anything less than a tacit endorsement of a content-based heckler’s veto.14 So long as the offended individuals complain with sufficient vigor, the refusal to abide by preferred pronouns can be deemed harassment and exposes a recipient of Federal funds to liability under Title IX. Given the Department’s apparent interpretation of Title IX’s mandate, the saving clause is exposed as little more than a paper tiger.
A fascinating read. Reeves tears apart the administration’s attempt to erase females with precise language.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY