Americans are aware that the Biden administration frequently juggles the law and politics after nearly four years of communist rule. The administration intends to use the Supreme Court case from 2020 regarding work prejudice, Bostock v. Clayton County, as the foundation for new federal regulations under Title IX, a law that forbids sex bias in education. The new laws defy common sense because they would require women to discuss locker rooms, bathrooms, and rain with kids, which is not only officially dubious, but they also defy common sense.  ,  ,
Luckily, the new laws just hit a major hindrance when federal courts in Louisiana, Kentucky, Kansas, and Texas issued primary injunctions against them, with more injunctions in different courts likely to follow. These courts properly rejected the Biden administration’s claim that Bostock establishes a certain level of equality between hiring and firing workers and taking showers in high school locker areas.  ,
President Biden instructed all national agencies to update their policies on the day of his inauguration in order to reveal the Bostock decision’s logic. According to Bostock, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act’s ban on employment discrimination resulting from an adult’s sexual includes terminating an worker just because they are gay or trans. The prosecutor concluded that under the statute’s words,” gender plays a necessary and undisguisable role” in for cancellation decisions.  ,
The release of the new rules under Title IX culminated in President Biden’s annual mandate. The controversy over the regulations primarily centers on the interpretation of sex to include “gender identity,” which will result in forced boys and girls sharing locker rooms, bathrooms, and lodging on over field trips.  ,
The Biden government’s new rules seriously misconstrue Bostock. The court made it clear that only Title VII was affected by its choice, and it expressly declined to determine whether Bostock‘s decision do” blow beyond Title VII” or any other law that forbids sex discrimination. Additionally, the court held that Title VII’s definition of sexual simply addressed natural distinctions between males and females. Nowhere did Bostock redefine the term to include “gender identity” or” transgender status” . ,  ,
The dissident magistrates predicted that protesters had use Bostock beyond Title VII, despite the narrowing speech in the majority viewpoint. And as if on signal, the Biden presidency published the new Title IX requirements.  ,
The Biden administration insists that Title IX’s definition of sexual includes both biological sex and “gender identity” while citing Bostock as the laws ‘ power. The fresh Title IX regulations may require children to do so, even though nothing in Bostock requires people to do so in close proximity to users of the opposite gender.  ,  ,
The new laws ignore important differences between Title VII and Title IX, as well as long-standing social standards and simple common sense, in addition to reading Bostock too loosely. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that the two regulations are incredibly diverse, despite there being some superficial similarities between them. Given that Title VII focuses solely on hiring and firing workers, while Title IX’s sole goal is to guarantee similar education opportunities for both women and girls, this is not surprising.  ,
Some of Title IX’s provisions acknowledge natural distinctions between the two sexes, and Congress made it clear that separating based on biological sex does not entail unlawful discrimination in some circumstances. For instance, Title IX formally allows schools to “maintain independent living facilities for the various sexes”, and until the new ones, regulations under the act had since 1975 allowed for independent toilets, bag rooms, and shower facilities. Title VII has no similar provisions.  ,
While Title IX specifically forbids discrimination on” the basis” of sex alone, Title VII more broadly forbids discrimination even where sex is just one of several motivating factors.  ,
Finally, when Congress passed the two statutes, it relied on separate sources of constitutional authority. Title IX allows an institution to receive federal funding if it guarantees not to discriminate against people based on sex, despite being framed as a general, outright prohibition. The latter authority is more constrained, and it requires that Congress not impose new restrictions on how much money is given to be provided by the government. Schools have been admonished for more than 50 years that they would eventually be required to abandon the accepted, widely accepted understanding of sex because of accepting federal funding.  ,
By allowing males who identify as female to access locker rooms, showers, and other intimate spaces, Biden’s regulations subvert Title IX’s original purpose. The new rule turns a statute designed to stop discrimination against women into one that exposes women and girls to invasions of privacy, embarrassment, physical insecurity, and an increased risk of sexual assault.  ,
The preliminary injunction’s authoritarian federal judge in Louisiana rightly criticized the new rule as an “abuse of power” and a” threat to democracy.” Simply put, the Biden administration lacks the authority under the Constitution to redefine fundamental statutory terms like sex; such changes must be made by Congress. The Biden administration wants to stifle the legislative process by acknowledging that Congress is unlikely to change Title IX to fit its radical gender ideology.  ,
Fortunately, courts do not appear inclined to let them get away with it. Soon, the Supreme Court will undoubtedly be asked to clarify both the increasingly frequent intersection of identity politics and the law as well as Bostock‘s breadth. In the meantime, schools in the 15 states that are subject to the preliminary injunctions wo n’t have to ignore biology or common sense.  ,
Donald A. Daugherty, Jr. is Senior Litigation Counsel for the Defense of Freedom Institute. DFI is co-counsel with the Attorneys General for the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, and Idaho, which won the first injunction against the new Title IX regulations.
