Defending the family

Share on MeWe Share on Gab E-mail article

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

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.

For the reasons above, we AFFIRM.