On Sunday, a federal court issued a nationwide injunction on the Obama administration’s significant guidance order that seeks to redefine the Title IX definition of sex as “gender identity.”
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt is a part of a 13-state coalition challenging the lawfulness of the president’s order.
“This injunction is the first step to preventing the Obama administration from holding hostage every single school district, nationwide,” Pruitt said. “The executive fiat passed down by the Department of Education and Department of Justice threatened the Title IX funding that Oklahoma schools, as well as all others across the nation, depend on. The thinly veiled threat is first and foremost unlawful, as we will continue to prove in court.”
Oklahoma along with 12 other states challenged the Obama administration’s directives in June, following a “significant guidance letter” in which the administration required schools to allow students access to restrooms or locker rooms of their gender identity rather than their sex, otherwise they would lose federal funding.
The federal district court ruling stops the Obama Administration from forcing public schools to allow boys into girls’ locker rooms, showers, and restrooms while the lawsuit of several states moves forward.
“The court found that the federal government failed to follow the public notice and comment process that federal law requires and that the text of Title IX regarding the definition of sex is unambiguous,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Legal Counsel Matt Sharp. “Congress intended it to refer to the ‘biological differences between male and female students.’
“The Obama administration cannot unilaterally disregard and redefine federal law to accomplish its political agenda of forcing girls to share locker rooms and showers with boys. The court in this case made clear that the administration ignored the federally required public notice and comment process as well as the crystal clear meaning of Title IX in its attempt to force its will on the American people.
“We are currently reviewing the order to determine the positive impact this order has for the cases that ADF is litigating against the departments of Education and Justice in Illinois, North Carolina, and Ohio.
“Schools have a duty to protect the privacy, safety, and dignity of all students, and this order certainly helps them in fulfilling that duty.”
The order of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Wichita Falls Division, states, “Based on the foregoing authority, the court concludes § 106.33 is not ambiguous. It cannot be disputed that the plain meaning of the term sex as used in § 106.33 when it was enacted by DOE following passage of Title IX meant the biological and anatomical differences between male and female students as determined at their birth.”
Also, “Additionally, it cannot reasonably be disputed that DOE complied with congressional intent when drawing the distinctions in § 106.33 based on the biological differences between male and female students. As the support identified by plaintiffs shows, this was the common understanding of the term when Title IX was enacted, and remained the understanding during the regulatory process that led to the promulgation of § 106.33.
“This undoubtedly was permitted because the areas identified by the regulations are places where male and female students may have to expose their ‘nude or partially nude body, genitalia, and other private parts,’ and separation from members of the opposite sex, those whose bodies possessed a different anatomical structure, was needed to ensure personal privacy.”