Judge refers to the new law as an “abuse of power.”
A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction against the law in four states after President Biden misapplied the rules and overstepped its power when it announced that Title IX would presently then include gender identity.
U. S. District Judge Terry Doughty’s Thursday ruling now blocks enforcement of what’s referred to as” Biden’s Rule” in Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, and Idaho, which along with several groups have filed lawsuits against the Democrat administration over its new pro- transgender policy.
” This injunction prevents the new rules from going into effect pending further review by the district court”, Liz Murrill, Louisiana’s attorney general, said in a statement. “…This a victory for women and girls”.
In April, the Biden administration made the decision to update the decades-old law to include gender identity. The change would require others to address women’s locker rooms and bathrooms with their preferred pronouns and allow female-identifying men to enter them.
That, according to the judge, is contrary to the original intent of the law.
In his 40-page ruling, Doughty wrote that the text of Title IX confirms that Title IX was intended to stop biological women from being discriminated against in education in favor of biological men. ” Title IX lists several exemptions which use the language ‘ one sex’ or ‘ both sexes ‘ showing that the statute was referring to biological men and biological women, not gender identity, sexual orientation, sex stereotypes, or sex characteristics”.
Doughty added that the Biden rule “does not provide any guidance for addressing ‘non-binary’ students or students with other gender identities” and failed to include any requirements for changing one’s gender identity.
” A’gender fluid ‘ person could possibly switch gender identities daily or frequently throughout the day. The Final Rule forbids adopting common-sense laws to ensure the person’s sincerity when they change gender identities. Allowing a student to announce what gender they are, without requiring any supporting documentation, is arbitrary and capricious”, according to the judge.
Doughty also criticised the rule for failing to take into account the fact that biological males and female biological females who identify as females have different body types. Nearly every civilization adheres to the prohibition against exposing one’s unclothed body to the other sex.
The judge added:
To protect the discrimination of biological females, Title IX was passed. The Final Rule may, however, likely result in more discrimination against biological females than it did before Title IX was passed. Importantly, the Final Rule’s requirement that biological females share their bathrooms and locker rooms with biological males did not take into account by the defendants. The Final Rule ignores the effect on the other students ( cisgender students ), and only addresses the “effect on the student who changes their gender identity.” These cisgender females are required to use the restroom, undress, and take a shower in front of people who may identify as female but still have male biological makeup. Many of these students are minors. The DOE made no attempt to assess the impact on students by 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.
The judge came to the conclusion that the” case illustrates the abuse of power by executive federal agencies in the rulemaking process.” For a reason, this nation has a separation of powers and a system of checks and balances.
According to Inside Higher Ed, the four states ‘ lawsuit that Doughty decided to settle is one of several “encouraging” complaints that seek to stop the Biden administration’s Title IX changes.
Doughty “is the first to weigh in on those legal challenges”, IHE reported. He claimed that the Education Department lacked the authority to pass the modifications. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, a notoriously conservative panel that has opposed a number of federal rule changes, has the right to challenge the ruling.
MORE: More conservative groups join legal battle against Biden’s ‘ radical’ Title IX rewrite
IMAGE: Jacob Lund / Shutterstock
Follow The College Fix on Twitter and Like us on Facebook.