Biden’s Bathroom Order Declared Unlawful

( )- The Biden administration was dealt another legal blow in court late last week, when a federal judge ruled that an order dealing with who could use what bathrooms in the country was unconstitutional.

In 2021, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued a new rule that sought to offer protection to individuals from the LGBTQ community for workplace discrimination. The rule permitted individuals to not only use pronouns that were based on the gender that they identify with, but allowed them to use bathrooms in the same manner.

Immediately following the issuing of that guidance, many states filed federal lawsuits that challenged it as being unconstitutional, since it infringed on the rights of private companies.

Last Friday, Matthew Kacsmaryk, a U.S. District Court Judge for the Northern District of Texas, agreed with Texas’ claims in the case. He ruled that those protections go too far.

In his ruling, he wrote that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does provide protections to individuals from the LGBTQ community from discrimination during hiring practices. However, it doesn’t cover “necessarily all correlated conduct,” which includes being able to choose which pronouns and bathrooms one can use.

In September of 2021, Ken Paxton, the attorney general of Texas, filed suit against the Biden administration in federal court, arguing the new EEOC guidance “increas[ed] for the State in its capacity as an employer — and Burrows did not even have authority to issue it.”

Paxton additionally argued that individual states hold inherent authority to be able to act using policies they set rather than relying on employer guidance that’s issued by the federal government.

The EEOC issued the new guidelines after the Supreme Court made a ruling in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County. In that ruling the high court found “that Title VII extends to protect individuals in the workplace from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.”

The suit was brought after LGBT employees filed lawsuits after they claimed they were fired because of their gender identity and sexual orientation.

Kacsmaryk referred to that Supreme Court ruling in his own ruling, when he wrote:

“Case by case, category by category, controversy by controversy, Justice [Neil] Gorsuch deferred judgment, stating Bostock decided only what Bostock decided … Curiously, the Guidances imply and Defendants continue to argue that Bostock’s reach exceeds the grasp of its author … Defendants … cannot rely on the words and reasoning of Bostock itself to explain why the Court prejudged what the Court expressly refused to prejudge.”

Following the ruling last week, Paxton released a press release that celebrated the decision. In it, he said:

“The court’s decision is not only a win for the rule of the law, but for the safety and protection of Texas children. The Biden Administration’s attempts to radicalize federal law to track its woke political beliefs are beyond dangerous.

“I will continue to push back against these unlawful attempts to use federal agencies to normalize extremist positions that put millions of Texans at risk.”