For a third time, a federal judge has affirmed a nationwide injunction against the Obama administration’s agenda to impose mandatory open-restroom policies on schools from coast to coast, scolding the White House for repeating old arguments and catching those who submitted the newest arguments in a lie.
The ruling this week from U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor left intact his nationwide injunction against Obama’s decision that transgender public school students can use the restroom of their choice, rather than the restroom designated for their biological gender.
The White House issued the order some months ago, and when several states sued, O’Connor ruled in August that they were likely to prevail in their arguments, so he suspended implementation of the program nationwide.
In October, when he had to address the issue again because of demands from the White House, he doubled down, stating, “It is clear from Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedent that this court has the power to issue a nationwide injunction where appropriate. Both Title IX and Title VII rely on the consistent, uniform application of national standards in education and workplace policy.
“A nationwide injunction is necessary because the alleged violation extends nationwide. Defendants are a group of agencies and administrators capable of enforcing their guidelines nationwide, affecting numerous state and school district facilities across the country.”
Now, in another ruling prompted by demands from the Obama administration, O’Connor has reaffirmed the decision.
“Defendants seek a partial stay, pending appeal, as to the preliminary injunction’s application to states and entities not plaintiffs in this case and have requested expedited consideration of their motion. After considering the briefing and applicable law, the court finds that defendants’ motion for partial stay of the court’s preliminary injunction should be and is hereby denied.”
He pointed out that the Obama administration was simply repeating itself.
“Defendants assert several arguments the court previously addressed at length and the court will not repeat its analysis on those issues,” he wrote.
Further, he said, the Obama administration is putting out characterizations that are far from the truth.
“Defendants grossly misstate the injunction’s scope in claiming it prohibits states from receiving ‘federal enforcement of the civil rights laws.’ … The court emphasized in its clarification order and reiterates here that the injunction does not prevent defendants from continuing their core mission of enforcing the federal civil rights laws enacted by Congress.”
He repeated his earlier statements that all the federal anti-discrimination enforcement procedures still are in effect, prohibiting discrimination “based on race, national origin, or disability.”
Further, he said the injunction “does not affect a school’s obligation to investigate and remedy student complaints of sexual harassment, sex stereotyping, and bullying.”
But he pointed out that the Obama administration order incorporated a new definition of “sex” that is in conflict with the original authorship of the law, as well as some 50 years of enforcement.
“The court remains convinced that plaintiffs, not defendants, have shown a great likelihood of success on the merits of their claims; and incorporates herein the analysis developed in its August 21, 2016, order issuing the preliminary injunction,” he wrote.
He said at that time the administration failed to meet the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act and issued directives that “contradict the existing legislative and regulatory texts.”
“The federal statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of ‘sex’ – the scope and meaning of which defendants claim now includes gender identity – were promulgated more than forty years ago. The federal government did not articulate, much less enforce, the guidelines’ interpretation of sex as including gender identity for nearly 50 years after Title VII was passed in 1964 and the court views this delay as strong evidence that defendants will suffer no irreparable injury if a stay is denied and enforcement of the guidelines delayed until their legality is established.”
Mat Staver, Liberty Counsel’s founder and chairman, applauded O’Connor’s “steadfast stand against the Obama administration attempts to impose its unlawful and harmful LGBT agenda on public schools.”
“The Obama directive is a lawless act and defies common sense,” he said.
The case arose when the Obama administration abruptly announced that “sex” as used in federal law now includes “gender identity,” a definition that never had been even suggested for enforcement.
The administration simply states that a boy who says he’s a girl must be allowed in a girls’ shower room, girls’ restroom or any other facility in which girls may be unclothed or partially clothed, or vice versa.
Lawyers for the Alliance Defending Freedom, who are involved in a number of challenges to the Obama administration strategy to impose open restrooms on public schools, said the injunction needed to be nationwide “to prevent harm to children in other parts of the country.”
ADF legal counsel Matt Sharp explained: “The Obama administration cannot hold hostage the privacy rights and dignity interests of boys and girls across America. The federal court’s affirmation of its previous order halting the Obama administration’s unlawful threats against schools across the nation preserves the authority of local schools to act in the best interest of their students and not out of fear of being stripped of their federal funding.
“The court made clear that the Obama administration’s unlawful actions put children at risk and that it cannot unilaterally disregard and redefine federal law to accomplish its political agenda of forcing girls to share locker rooms and showers with boys. Schools have a duty to protect the privacy, safety, and dignity of all students, and this order ensures that they may continue to fulfill that duty.”
Federal agencies had argued that schools that failed to abide by their new definition of “sex” could be subject to loss of federal funding.
WND reported at the time the judge’s order was a major blow to Obama’s alternative-sexual-behaviors agenda.
The Obama administration contends that when Congress adopted the nondiscrimination law in 1972, it had open restrooms and showers in mind.
At that time, the judge pointed out, “It cannot be disputed that the plain meaning of the term sex as used in [existing law] when it was enacted by DOE following passage of Title IX meant the biological and anatomical differences between male and female students as determined at their birth.”
The U.S. Supreme Court already has stepped into the issue, blocking a court order in Virginia that gave a girl who identifies as a boy the right to use boys’ restrooms.
The decision in Fort Worth came in a case brought by Texas and about a dozen other states. Texas officials said the administration’s demand “hold[s] a gun to the head” of school districts, threatening them with the loss of funding.
A separate group of states also had sued, in addition to the case led by Texas, which charged Obama “conspired to turn workplaces and educational settings across the country into laboratories for a massive social experiment, flouting the democratic process, and running roughshod over commonsense policies protecting children and basic privacy rights.”
One of the more egregious case developed in Minnesota, where a school allowed a partially clothed boy to “twerk” in front of female classmates while they changed their clothes for physical education and sports events.
ADF, which brought that case, also has cases against school districts in Illinois and Ohio over the same issue.