Updated: Public Advocate Defeats Joe Biden: 6th District Throws out Trans Exec Order
Updated June 17, 2024
"Thank you to the Sixth District of the U.S. Appeals Court for throwing out President Joe Biden's illegal regulations on transgender policy," says Eugene Delgaudio.
"Public Advocate filed a friend of the court brief over a year ago and our brief argued that the President skipped regulatory procedures in an illegal manner which was upheld by the Appeals Court, " said Delgaudio.
PUBLIC ADVOCATE LAWYERS William Olson and others wrote in their Amicus brief:
Based
on
the
issues
that
were
addressed
by
the
district
court,
at
this
point,
we
address
the
following
issues:
1.
The
Biden
Administration's
reliance
on
the
Supreme
Court's
decision
in
Bostock
to
expand
other
federal
laws
in
ways
that
the
Supreme
Court
didn't
intend
is
erroneous.
And
we
also
intend
to
address
what
the
Supreme
Court
got
wrong
in
Bostock.
2.
Plaintiff
States
should
have
standing
to
challenge
the
Biden
Administration's
transgender
rules,
particularly
as
they
administer
the
schools
that
are
directly
affected
by
the
rules.
We
want
states
to
have
standing
to
challenge
the
federal
government.
3.
Such
rules
have
caused
great
harm
when
they
are
imposed
on
schools,
and
run
contrary
to
state
laws.
"The Appeals court agreed with our reasoning in their lengthy decision rejecting the Biden Administration's regulations forcing bizarre transgender regulations on America's schools," said Delgaudio,.
FROM THE DECISION OF THE SIXTH CIRCUIT: Tennessee, et al. v. Dep't of Educ., et al.
"On August 30, 2021, twenty states
sued,
challenging
the
legality
of
these
Documents.4
The
Plaintiff
States
operate
educational
programs
and
activities
that
receive
federal
funding
and
are
thus
subject
to
Title
IX's
requirements.
The
States
allege
that
the
Department's
Documents
are
procedurally
and
substantively
unlawful
under
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act
(APA),
Title
IX,
and
the
U.S.
Constitution.....................
..................We
consider
three
theories
supporting
the
States'
standing:
(1)
a
proprietary-interest
theory,
(2)
a
sovereign-interest
theory,
and
(3)
a
procedural-rights
theory.
In
the
end,
all
twenty
Plaintiff
States
show
a
substantial
likelihood
of
standing
sufficient
to
obtain
a
preliminary
injunction................
Proprietary
and
sovereign
interests
aside,
all
twenty
States
have
a
substantial
likelihood
of
standing
under
a
procedural-rights
theory................
Simply
put,
the
Department
leaves
itself
no
room
to
take
the
position
that
Title
IX
does
not
prohibit
discrimination
based
on
sexual
orientation
or
gender
identity................
So
States
will
risk
losing
their
federal
funding
if
they
continue
to
run
their
educational
institutions
in
accordance
with
their
own
laws
and
policies....................
As of now, no court has ruled on the lawfulness of the Documents-not even the district
court
below
because
we
are
in
the
preliminary-injunction
phase.
So
there
is
no
conflict
with
another
court's
jurisdiction.
V.
For
the
reasons
above,
we
AFFIRM.
COPY OF SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT DECISION OVERTURNING BIDEN TRANS ORDER