A federal judge has denied the U.S. Department of Education's rewrite of Title IX, which would have given men access to women's spaces.
U.S. District Judge Danny C. Reeves rejected the rewrite on grounds that it was forced speech, unconstitutional and simply didn't make sense.
of ruling The law applies to all states, not just the plaintiff states of Kentucky, Virginia, Indiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia.
The Biden administration's Department of Energy is seeking to add regulations to Title IX that would allow men to access women's “showers, locker rooms, sex education classes, etc.” as long as they match an individual's “gender identity.” .
“But this approach makes no sense at all,” Judge Reeves wrote. Reeves called the new regulations “arbitrary” and said the Department of Education had “no rational explanation” for the apparent contradictions in the rewrite.
The judge explained that expanding the meaning of “based on gender” to include “gender identity” would “turn Title IX on its head.”
Former NCAA athlete Riley Gaines has been adamant about keeping men out of women's sports. called The decision is “a huge victory for girls and women around the world!”
“The First Amendment does not allow the government to chill speech.”
Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Scrumetti explained The ruling is a “major victory for the protection of girls' privacy in locker rooms and showers and their freedom to speak biologically accurate pronouns.”
Scumetti referred to another part of the ruling, explaining that the new rules will require Title IX recipients, including teachers, to use “the name and pronouns associated with the student's claimed gender identity.” .
The judge said the new “subjective standard of harassment” clearly “forced” speech, adding that even mere stray words or misuse of words could be considered harassment. He cited the DOE's assertion that:
“Pronouns can and do convey powerful messages that hint at sensitive topics of public concern.”
Judge Reeves said plaintiffs are right to be concerned that not using their preferred pronoun could be considered harassment under the potential new rules. It also declared it a violation of the First Amendment.
“Simply put, the First Amendment does not allow the government to chill speech in this way or force speakers to affirm beliefs with which they disagree,” the justices wrote.
The judge also found that the Biden administration's argument that “preventing an individual from participating in programs or accessing single-sex facilities consistent with their gender identity” would expose that person to “harm” is a violation of Title IX. He said it was inconsistent with the whole thing. “fully encompassing issues of gender identity.”
The judge compared this idea to excluding men from women's organizations, and seemed to suggest that gender-based organizations cannot exist if this is seen as causing “harm”.
Do you like Blaze News? Avoid censorship and sign up for our newsletter to get articles like this delivered straight to your inbox. Please register here!
