Difference between revisions of "Louisiana v. US Dept of Education"
From Conservapedia
Conservative (Talk | contribs) |
(expanded) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[File:Flag of Louisiana.png|thumbnail|right|250px|Flag of Louisiana]] | [[File:Flag of Louisiana.png|thumbnail|right|250px|Flag of Louisiana]] | ||
| − | In '''Louisiana v. U.S. Dept. of Education''', on June 13, 2024, federal district judge Terry Doughty of the Western District of [[Louisiana]] blocked enforcement of a new pro-[[transgender]] rule by [[Biden]]'s [[Department of Education]] under [[Title IX]]. This injunction applies to protect the | + | In '''Louisiana v. U.S. Dept. of Education''', on June 13, 2024, federal district judge Terry Doughty (appointed by [[Trump]]) of the Western District of [[Louisiana]] blocked enforcement of a new pro-[[transgender]] rule by [[Biden]]'s [[Department of Education]] under [[Title IX]]. This injunction applies to protect the four states that filed this lawsuit.<ref>https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68479494/state-of-louisiana-v-u-s-dept-of-education/ See Docs. 53 and 54.</ref> |
| + | |||
| + | Among other things, Judge Doughty ruled that: | ||
| + | * ''Bostock'' does not apply to Title IX; | ||
| + | * the regulation is barred by the [[major questions doctrine]]; | ||
| + | * the new rule violates the Spending Clause by not giving recipients the opportunity to opt out; | ||
| + | * the agency violated the Administrative Procedures Act; | ||
| + | * the rule violates the [[First Amendment]] by requiring people to use preferred pronouns; etc. | ||
As explained by ''[[Politico]]'': | As explained by ''[[Politico]]'': | ||
Latest revision as of 23:13, June 14, 2024
In Louisiana v. U.S. Dept. of Education, on June 13, 2024, federal district judge Terry Doughty (appointed by Trump) of the Western District of Louisiana blocked enforcement of a new pro-transgender rule by Biden's Department of Education under Title IX. This injunction applies to protect the four states that filed this lawsuit.[1]
Among other things, Judge Doughty ruled that:
- Bostock does not apply to Title IX;
- the regulation is barred by the major questions doctrine;
- the new rule violates the Spending Clause by not giving recipients the opportunity to opt out;
- the agency violated the Administrative Procedures Act;
- the rule violates the First Amendment by requiring people to use preferred pronouns; etc.
As explained by Politico:
| “ | The judge also ruled Bostock v. Clayton County, a landmark Supreme Court case that said it is unlawful to discriminate against people based on their gender identity or sexual orientation in the workplace, does not apply to Title IX. The Supreme Court ruling has been one of the Biden administration’s core pieces of legal rationale to support its new interpretation of sex discrimination under Title IX. | ” |
