Supreme Court strikes down Biden-Harris Title IX change that some argued would allow men in women's

[mystery-ak]

Supreme Court strikes down Biden-Harris Title IX change that some argued would allow men in women's sports
The Biden administration claimed the rule wouldn't permit biological men to compete in women's sports, but many experts disagreed
 By Jackson Thompson Fox News
Published August 16, 2024 8:19pm EDT

The Supreme Court voted 5-4 Friday to reject a Biden administration emergency request to enforce portions of a new rule that includes protections from discrimination for transgender students under Title IX.

The request would have permitted biological men in women’s bathrooms, locker rooms and dorms in 10 states where there are state-level and local-level rules in place to prevent it.

The sweeping rule was issued in April and clarified that Title IX’s ban on "sex" discrimination in schools covers discrimination based on gender identity, sexual orientation and "pregnancy or related conditions."

The rule took effect Aug. 1, and, for the first time, the law stated that discrimination based on sex includes conduct related to a person’s gender identity.

More than two dozen Republican attorneys general sued over the rule and argued it would conflict with some of their state laws that block transgender students from participating in women’s sports.

The Biden administration insisted the regulation does not address athletic eligibility. However, multiple experts presented evidence to Fox News Digital in June that Biden's claims it would not result in biological men participating in women's sports weren't true and that the proposal would ultimately put more biological men in women's sports.

The court's decision Friday struck a blow to the Biden administration's ongoing efforts to protect transgender inclusion.

"On this limited record and in its emergency applications, the Government has not provided this Court a sufficient basis to disturb the lower courts’ interim conclusions that the three provisions found likely to be unlawful are intertwined with and affect other provisions of the rule," the court’s unsigned order states.

more
https://www.foxnews.com/sports/scotus-strikes-down-biden-harris-title-ix-change-some-argued-would-let-men-womens-sports

[rangerrebew]

https://wokespy.com/scotus-rejects-latest-biden-assault-on-womens-rights/

[Elderberry]

Sanity In the Court

Powerline 8/18/2024

On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied an emergency application by the Biden Administration for partial stays on orders entered by district courts and affirmed by the Fifth and Sixth Circuits. As usual in such cases, the Court’s order was Per Curiam. The order lays out the procedural history succinctly:

    The Department of Education recently issued a new rule implementing Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The rule newly defined sex discrimination to “includ[e ] discrimination on the basis of sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity.” 89 Fed. Reg. 33886 (2024).

    Several States and other parties sought preliminary injunctions against the new rule, arguing among other things that the rule exceeded the bounds of the statutory text enacted by Congress. District Courts in Louisiana and Kentucky agreed with the plaintiffs and preliminarily enjoined enforcement of the rule in the plaintiff States. The Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Sixth Circuits then declined to stay the injunctions in the interim period while those courts consider the Government’s appeals of the preliminary injunctions.

One of the district court orders under review was by Judge Danny Reeves of Kentucky. The order begins this way:

    There are two sexes: male and female.

That opening line is footnoted:

    The defendants made this concession during oral arguments on the plaintiffs’ motion for injunctive relief. The parties have agreed to little else.

Judge Reeves’ opinion is long and persuasive, but that gives you a sense of where he is coming from.

Four justices dissented from the Supreme Court’s order denying the administration’s request for an emergency stay–the three liberals, plus Justice Gorsuch. Press coverage of the Court’s order was often misleading. CNN’s, for example:

    The Supreme Court on Friday turned down a request from the Biden administration to enforce parts of a new federal rule meant to protect LGBTQ+ and pregnant students from discrimination in 10 states where the rule was put on hold by federal judges.

More: https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/08/sanity-in-the-court.php