VICTORY! Federal court blocks Obama’s transgender bathroom order

[Silhouette]

Obergefell didn't say a thing about transgender folks.

Perhaps not. But the judge who placed the stay on the 12 states vs the Obama Administration DID say a thing about transgender folks.

 

[Skylar]

Obergefell didn't say a thing about transgender folks.

Perhaps not. But the judge who placed the stay on the 12 states vs the Obama Administration DID say a thing about transgender folks.

Nothing just you did. His basis for ruling was that the Obama administration hadn't provided enough time for public comment on the change in policy.

You're citing your imagination....again.

 

[Silhouette]

Obergefell didn't say a thing about transgender folks.

Perhaps not. But the judge who placed the stay on the 12 states vs the Obama Administration DID say a thing about transgender folks.

His basis for ruling was that the Obama administration hadn't provided enough time for public comment on the change in policy.

He also addressed needing to preserve the status quo because of real and pressing concerns regarding a need for (actual, not pretend) gender privacy in restrooms, showers etc. in schools. Remember that? Forgot conveniently?

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.go..._v._U.S._et_al_-_Nationwide_PI_(08-21-16).pdf

This case presents the difficult issue of balancing the protection of students’ rights and that of personal privacy when using school bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, and other intimate facilities...(page 18)...In this case, although the Guidelines provide no safe harbor provision, the DOJ/DOE Letter provides not only must Plaintiffs permit individuals to use the restrooms, locker rooms, showers, and housing consistent with their gender identity, but that they find no safe harbor in providing transgender students individual-user facilities as an alternative accommodation. Indeed, the Guidelines provide that schools may, consistent with Title IX, make individual-user facilitates available for otherstudents who “voluntarily seek additional privacy.

More:
(page 22)

Defendants also assert they did not act contrary to law because the Guidelines are valid interpretations of Title IX as the statute and regulations “do not address how [the laws] apply when a transgender student seeks to use those facilities ” or “ how a school should determine a transgender student’s sex when providing access to sex-segregated facilities.” Id. at 20–21. Thus, according to Defendants, this situation presents an ambiguity in the regulatory scheme

More:
(page 22-23)

Plaintiffs counter that DOE’s implementing regulation, § 106.33, is not “ambiguous[,] [a]s a physiologically-grounded regulation, it covers every human being and therefor all those within the reach of Title IX.”...They contend further, “[t]o create legal room to undo what Congress (and preceding regulators) had done, Defendants manufacture an ambiguity, claiming that ‘these regulations do not address how they apply when a transgender student seeks to use those facilities . . . .’ ”Id. (citing Defs.’ Response 20–21, ECF No. 40).

Plaintiffs continue, “n enacting Title IX, Congress was concerned that women receive the same opportunities as men, [t]hus, Congress utilized ‘sex’ in an exclusively biological context[,] [and] “[t]he two sexes are not fungible.” Id. at 8–9 (quoting Ballard v. United States, 329 U.S. 187, 193 (1946). It is the biological differences between men and women, Plaintiffs allege, that led Congress in 1972 to “permit differential treatment by sex only[,]” provide a basis for DOE “to approve ‘separate toilet, locker rooms, and shower facilities on the basis of sex” in §106.33, and led the Supreme Court “to conclude that educational institutions must ‘afford members of each sex privacy from the other sex.

Saying all that, the judge found FOR the plaintiffs...the 12 states suing the Obama Administration in staying the status quo of biological gender determining who gets to use the boys and girls rooms respectively.
(page 23)

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits because: (1) Defendants bypassed the notice and comment process required by the APA; (2) Title IX and § 106.33’s text is not ambiguous; and (3) Defendants are not entitled to agency deference under Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997)

That "not ambiguous" part refers to the concrete nature of boys being boys and girls being girls, no matter what is going on in their head.

 

[Silhouette]

for sill this thread is like feeding smack to a herion addict.

Or it's like "FINALLY" breath of fresh air for everyone with a sane mind...