Protect against Title IX and submit a comment by September 12, 2022.
The US Department of Education released their proposed changes to Title IX regulations that would dramatically change the future for women and girls in federally funded activities and programs. There are many negative impacts that will harm girls, women, and families.
A government portal has been set up for you to make a comment submission. It is very straight-forward and easy to do. In addition, this governmental body is required to read every submission, large and small – before they can finalize the new “Rule.” So rest assured, your input will be read and considered.
Parents, students, and teachers across the United States expressed concern about the “Dear Colleague Letter”sent out earlier this year by the Obama administration, requiring schools to allow students to use restrooms and locker rooms “consistent with their gender identity.” We at United Families shared your concerns.
As today’s alert by UFI Board Member Bill Duncan points out, the Obama letter’s government overreach and “one-size fits all approach” was not a fair solution. Mr. Duncan explains, “The court issued the injunction because the Department of Education had failed to follow proper procedures in creating its new rule about facilities and had exceeded its authority. . . . This week’s decision is a welcome opportunity for local, state, and national leaders to correct the mistake.”
United Families International applauds Judge O’Connor’s decision, and encourages states and local communities to find thoughtful and practical restroom and locker room solutions that will protect the privacy and safety of all students.
Federal Judge Gives Schools a Reprieve from Transgender Mandate by Bill Duncan
As the school year begins, those playing close attention to politics may have been wondering whether they would soon be having some very uncomfortable conversations with their children about privacy, safety and “gender identity.”
In May, federal government officials from the Department of Education and the Justice Department sent “guidance” to the nation’s schools, mandating, among other things, that schools should allow a student who identifies as a member of the opposite sex to use locker rooms, showers, facilities and overnight accommodations consistent with the student’s “gender identity.” While some had reasonably suggested students in this situation could be accommodated with single user facilities, the federal mandate specifically ruled this out, prioritizing the ideology that a person’s sex is not related to any biological factors but is a matter of subjective feelings over concerns about safety and privacy of other students.
The rationale offered by the federal government was that they were merely applying a 1972 law (Title IX) that said schools cannot discriminate on the basis of sex. This was not merely an academic exercise, though. The mandate made clear that federal education funding could be lost if local schools did not comply.
Reacting to this one-size-fits-all approach, thirteen states (Texas, Alabama, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Tennessee, Arizona, Maine, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Utah, Georgia, Mississippi, Kentucky) challenged the mandate in federal court. Earlier this week, the court issued a preliminary injunction, meaning it ordered the federal government not to enforce the mandate until the legal questions raised by the states could be resolved.
The court issued the injunction because the Department of Education had failed to follow proper procedures in creating its new rule about facilities and had exceeded its authority since the law it claimed to be implementing was not ambiguous (in 1972 Congress understood “sex” to mean a biological attribute).
What are the prospects for this decision going forward? The problems with the mandate noted by the judge make it very likely the law will be permanently struck down at this level. The federal government is likely to appeal this injunction or a later final decision. The case will then be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which is sensitive to concerns about government overreach and which many observers believe would be sympathetic to the states’ claim.
There has been a similar case already decided in Virginia. In that case, the ACLU had sued a school for arranging to allow a young woman who identified as male to use a single-user facility rather than male facilities. The trial court and a panel of judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (in a 2-1 decision) deferred to earlier Department of Education guidance. If the Fifth Circuit upholds the Texas decision, these cases would be in conflict and presumably the U.S. Supreme Court would decide whether the states should be required to comply with the administrative agencies’ novel interpretation of Title IX. The Supreme Court recently issued a stay, halting the implementation of the Virginia ruling. This does not necessarily predict how the majority of the justices would finally rule, but it does suggest the Court recognizes the seriousness of the issue.
This sensitive issue implicates concerns of safety, privacy, and basic decency in the way we treat those who identify as transgender and those who are understandably sharing shower and other facilities with a person of the opposite sex. By treating this question as an opportunity to make ideological points by overreaching its authority to interpret laws clearly requiring a contrary result, the federal government’s actions do not justify any deference. This week’s decision is a welcome opportunity for local, state and national leaders to correct the mistake.
William C. Duncan is the director of the Marriage Law Foundation and of the Sutherland Institute’s Center for Family and Society. He was previously acting director of the Marriage Law Project at the Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law and executive director of the Marriage and Family Law Research Grant at J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, where he was also a visiting professor. He has published numerous articles on constitutional and family law issues in a variety of legal journals.
William C. Duncan is the director of the Marriage Law Foundation and of the Sutherland Institute’s Center for Family and Society. He was previously acting director of the Marriage Law Project at the Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law and executive director of the Marriage and Family Law Research Grant at J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, where he was also a visiting professor. He has published numerous articles on constitutional and family law issues in a variety of legal journals.