Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti praised the ruling of a federal judge in Kentucky, who put down an injunctioni against implementation of a ruling from the Biden administration on gender identity.
Judge Danny Reeves began his 92-page opinion, saying, "There are two sexes: male and female."
Attorney General Skrmetti said, “This is a big win for the Constitution and the people of Tennessee. We fought hard to protect our constitutional separation of powers, which ensures that the people through their elected representatives are the only authority that can make new laws.
"If the rule we stopped had been allowed to go into effect on Aug. 1 as scheduled, Tennessee schools and universities would have to let boys into girls’ locker rooms and other private spaces. If the rule went into effect, our schools would have to punish teachers and students who declined to use someone’s preferred pronouns. These are profound changes to the law that the American people never agreed to. This rule was a huge overreach by federal bureaucrats, and the Court was right to stop it.”
Judge Reeves, who is chief judge of the Eastern District of Kentucky, said, "Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 was intended to level the playing field between men and women in education. The statute tells us that no person shall be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance “on the basis of sex.” 20 U.S.C. § 1681.
"However, the Department of Education seeks to derail deeply rooted law with a Final Rule that is set to go into effect on August 1, 2024. At bottom, the Department would turn Title IX on its head by redefining “sex” to include “gender identity.” But “sex” and “gender identity” do not mean the same thing. The Department’s interpretation conflicts with the plain language of Title IX and therefore exceeds its authority to promulgate regulations under that statute. This Court is not persuaded by the Department’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, 590 U.S. 644 (2020)—a case that was explicitly limited to the context of employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
"The Final Rule also has serious First Amendment implications. The rule includes a new definition of sexual harassment which may require educators to use pronouns consistent with a student’s purported gender identity rather than their biological sex. Based on the “pervasive” nature of pronoun usage in everyday life, educators likely would be required to use students’ preferred pronouns regardless of whether doing so conflicts with the educator’s religious or moral beliefs.
"A rule that compels speech and engages in such viewpoint discrimination is impermissible. Additionally, the Department’s actions with respect to this rulemaking are arbitrary and capricious. The Department fails to provide a reasoned explanation for departing from its longstanding interpretations regarding the meaning of sex and provided virtually no answers to many of the difficult questions that arose during the public comment phase. Notably, the Department does not provide a sufficient explanation for leaving regulations in place that conflict with the new gender-identity mandate, nor does it meaningfully respond to commentors’ concerns regarding risks posed to student and faculty safety."
The ruling is limited to the plaintiff states of Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, and West Virginia.
To read a copy of the opinion, click here.