Title Offense

The judge was upset:

Judge John W. Broomes of the US District Court for the District of Kansas (Trump appointee) issued a scathing 47-page opinion while enjoining enforcement of the new rule in four states: Alaska, Kansas, Utah, and Wyoming. Judge Broomes found the rule was 1) contrary to law, 2) the Department of Education lacked congressional authority to make the rule because of the Major Questions Doctrine, 3) the rule violates the Constitution's spending clause 4) the rule violates the First Amendment because it is impermissibly vague and overbroad, and, finally, 5) the rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act because it is "arbitrary and capricious." The rule was found to be contrary to the law because it goes beyond the definition of "sex" in the statute, and it also redefines sex discrimination. Significantly, the purpose of Title IX was to protect “biological women from discrimination in education[;] [s]uch purpose makes it difficult to sincerely argue that, at the time of enactment, ‘discrimination on the basis of sex’ included gender identity, sex stereotypes, sexual orientation, or sex characteristics.” Id., at *12. The DoE’s reinterpretation of Title IX to place gender identity on equal footing with (or in some instances arguably stronger footing than) biological sex would subvert Congress’ goals of protecting biological women in education. The Final Rule would, among other things, require schools to subordinate the fears, concerns, and privacy interests of biological women to the desires of transgender biological men to shower, dress, and share restroom facilities with their female peers. Moreover, to expand sex discrimination to encompass “self-professed and potentially ever-changing gender identity is inconsistent with Title IX’s sex-separation dictates.” The vast changes required to implement the law and its deviation from Congress's intent when the law was passed violate the Major Questions Doctrine.

That's not how it was supposed to work...