A federal judge on Wednesday doubled down on his suspension of President Obama’s transgender bathroom plan for schools, affirming the injunction prevents the imposition of the program nationwide.

“It is clear from Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedent that this court has the power to issue a nationwide injunction where appropriate,” ruled U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor in Texas. “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.

“Should the court only limit the injunction to the plaintiff states who are a party to this cause of action, the court risks a ‘substantial likelihood that a geographically limited injunction would be ineffective.'”

The Obama administration has announced that it is re-interpreting federal non-discrimination law so that “sex” – and bans on discrimination on that basis – includes “gender identity.”

That means a boy who says he’s a girl would have to be allowed in a girls’ shower room, or vice versa.

See what American education has become, in “Crimes of the Educators: How Utopians Are Using Government Schools to Destroy America’s Children.”

Several states sued and O’Connor issued the injunction against the application of the newly discovered definition.

The Obama administration then complained the injunction was too broad, insisting officials should be able to impose their new definition in other cases not involving the plaintiff states.

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 fulfil 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 view.

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.”

Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver said the Obama directive “was a lawless and ridiculous act by the president and we must continue to reject the Obama bullies.”

“The facts show that one in four girls and one out of every six boys under 18 will be sexually assaulted,” Staver said. “This unconstitutional mandate would have only increased those statistics.”

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 order will stand until the Supreme Court decides whether to accept the case.

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.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton told the Dallas Morning News it was an “illegal federal overreach.”

“This president is attempting to rewrite the laws enacted by the elected representatives of the people, and is threatening to take away federal funding from schools to force them to conform,” he said in a prepared statement.

The administration has been accused of ignoring the right of students not to be exposed to unclothed members of the opposite sex.

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.”

The Obama plan allows students to hide from their parents that they are presenting themselves as “transgender,” establishes “transgenders” as a political class but not a medical class and “will certainly harm the millions of ordinary children who are not struggling with gender identity issues,” a report said.

The judge also ordered additional briefing on whether Title VII is implicated by the injunction and whether the injunction “applies to OSHA or DOL activity.”

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.

See what American education has become, in “Crimes of the Educators: How Utopians Are Using Government Schools to Destroy America’s Children.”


Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.