A federal judge ruled that the Supreme Court ’s overturning of the Chevron doctrine means the Biden administration’s latest interpretation of Title IX cannot require Mississippi healthcare providers to perform transgender-related services.
In April, the Department of Health and Human Services released regulations that penalize healthcare providers for discriminating against those seeking care on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation. HHS announced it would cut federal funding from health providers and insurers who refuse to provide gender-affirming care. The agency released its guidance on the basis of its new interpretation of Title IX to include gender identity and sexual orientation.
U.S. District Judge Louis Guirola Jr. wrote in a decision on Wednesday that HHS had exceeded its authority as a government agency.
“Plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that HHS exceeded its statutory authority by applying the Bostock holding to Section 1557’s incorporation of Title IX in its May 2024 Rule,” he wrote.
The judge’s reference to Bostock alludes to a 2020 Supreme Court ruling that the Biden administration has used to reshape sex discrimination regulations.
“HHS acted unreasonably when it relied on Bostock’s analysis in order to conflate the phrase ‘on the basis of sex’ with the phrase ‘on the basis of gender identity,’” the judge continued.
The government agency has reinterpreted Title IX regulation defining sex to include gender identity and sexual orientation, using it to expand sex discrimination protections in the healthcare system. Mississippi became one of at least 15 Republican-led states to challenge the HHS interpretation of the rule as unconstitutional, arguing that it placed unlawful regulations on healthcare providers and harmed developing children.
The states also worried that if they were forced “to pay for taxpayer funds to pay for unproven and costly gender transition interventions through Medicaid and state health plans — even for children who may suffer irreversible harms,” they would be subject to lawsuits by employees and patients.
In his ruling on Wednesday, Guirola noted that the Biden administration’s interpretation of “sex” differed from what the term meant at the time of the regulations’ passage.
Guirola stated that when Congress passed Title IX in 1972, "'sex' was commonly understood to refer to physiological differences between men and women — particularly with respect to reproductive functions.” Mere days before Congress passed Title IX protections decades ago, the Supreme Court ruled that “the two sexes are not fungible.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
In the context of the regulation’s passage, Guirola's decision stated that lawmakers intended the regulation to protect “biological sex” and that the Biden administration had no authority to redefine the term to include “gender identity.”
The judge leaned on the Supreme Court’s overhaul of the Chevron doctrine to help form the legal basis for his decision. In a massive blow to agencies' power, the nation’s highest court struck down federal agencies' ability to interpret laws. The federal ruling on Title IX makes it the latest regulation to fall in the wake of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision last Friday.
Most Popular
Comments / 0