AUSTIN – Attorney General Paxton has secured another major victory over the Biden Administration with the U.S. District Court for the NorthernDistrict of Texas ruling in favor of Texas and halting implementation of two woke Biden Administration rules.
The decision comes after Attorney General Paxton sued the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for forcing the State of Texas to adopt rules requiring bathroom, locker room, shower, and pronoun usage based on “gender identity” rather than biological sex. Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller supported this challenge and provided compelling evidence that the rule conflicted with the Department of Agriculture’s authority to set reasonable workplace policies. Paxton later amended the lawsuit to include the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services(HHS) as a defendant after the agency released a new rule threatening to cut federal funding to states that prohibit “sex-change” procedures and classify it as child abuse. The District Court struck down both rules.
“The court decision’s is not only a win for the rule of law, but for the safety and protection of Texas children,” said Attorney General Paxton. “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.”
The District Court ruled that the Administration’s implementation of these rules violated Title VII, the Administrative Procedure Act, and even the EEOC’s own self-imposed procedural requirements. It also stated that the rule issued by HHS was arbitrary and capricious. The Court stated in its ruling: “Case by case, category by category, controversy by controversy, Justice Gorsuch deferred judgement, 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.”