Month: August 2024

Categories
Department of Education Due Process Free Speech Gender Agenda Gender Identity Office for Civil Rights Title IX

Democratic-Appointed Judges Highly Critical of New Title IX Regulation

PRESS RELEASE

Robert Thompson: 301-801-0608

Email: info@saveservices.org

Democratic-Appointed Judges Highly Critical of New Title IX Regulation

WASHINGTON / August 27, 2024 – On April 19, the U.S. Department of Education issued its long-awaited Title IX regulation (1). Media accounts have generally classified supporters of the rule as “liberal,” while opponents of the policy categorized as “conservative.” (2) But subsequent judicial rulings have cast doubt on this convenient stereotype.

Over the last three months, 10 lawsuits have been filed against the controversial policy. In response, circuit courts, appellate courts, and the Supreme Court have handed down a total of 12 decisions. Eleven out of the 12 opinions have imposed a temporary injunction on the rule. (3)

One of the most unexpected aspects of the decisions is the fact that many judges appointed by Democratic lawmakers have been highly critical of the policy. This fact is revealed in two decisions: the August 16 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, three of whose members were named by Democratic presidents; and the July 24 decision by District Court Judge Rodney Sippel, nominated by President Bill Clinton in 1997:

Supreme Court: In their August 16 decision, Justice Sotomayor, with the concurrence of Justices Kagan and Jackson (along with Justice Gorsuch, nominated by a Republican president) authored this stunning rebuke of the Department of Education document (4):

“Every Member of the Court agrees respondents are entitled to interim relief as to three provisions of that Rule: 34 CFR §106.10 (2023) (defining sex discrimination), §106.31(a)(2) (prohibiting schools from preventing individuals from accessing certain sex-separated spaces consistent with their gender identity), and §106.2’s definition of hostile environment harassment.”

Their statement expressed a categorical disapproval of the new regulation’s plan to:

  1. Redefine sex to include “gender identity.”
  2. Allow transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms designated for members of the opposite sex.
  3. Create a new definition of “hostile environment harassment” which would have the effect of chilling free speech and negating Supreme Court precedent.

Circuit Court Judge Sippel:  On May 7, the states of Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota filed their complaint against the Department of Education (5).  Eleven weeks later, Judge Rodney Sippel of the Eastern District of Missouri issued his opinion. His 56-page decision expressed concerns about the same three issues enumerated by the Supreme Court, but went far beyond that. The Sippel ruling also expressed doubts about:

  • Irreparable Injury: “The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”
  • Overly Broad Scope: “Damages are not available for simple acts of teasing and name-calling among school children, however, even where these comments target differences in gender.”
  • Spending Clause: “Since Title IX was enacted pursuant to Congress’s authority under the Spending Clause of the Constitution…the Supreme Court ‘insists that Congress speak with a clear voice’ when imposing conditions on the receipt of federal funds,”
  • Statutory Authority: Judge Sippel rebuked the Department of Education for exceeding its “statutory authority” a total of 10 times in his decision.
  • Arbitrary and Capricious: The Judge repeatedly criticized the Title IX regulation for being “arbitrary and capricious.”

At the end, Democratic-appointed Judge Sippel penned this stunning conclusion: “After due consideration of all the foregoing authorities in light of the aforementioned differences between the two statutes, Bostock’s express disavowal to bathrooms or locker rooms or other statutory schemes, and in the absence of controlling authority, the Court concludes that plaintiffs have met their preliminary burden of demonstrating a fair chance of prevailing on their argument that Bostock should not apply to Title IX, and that the Department exceeded its statutory authority and/or acted contrary to law in redefining ‘on the basis of sex’ for purposes of Title IX.”

Following the 12 decisions, the Title IX policy has been frozen in the 26 states of LA, MS, MT, ID, TN, KY, OH, IN, VA, WV, KS, AK, UT, WY, TX, AR, MO, OA, NE, ND, SD, AL, FL, GA, SC, and OK, as well as in thousands of schools in 45 states attended by children of Moms for Liberty members and by members of the Young America’s Foundation (6).

Given the bipartisan legal and public (7) opposition to the Title IX regulation, and given its high implementation costs, governors and school superintendents in the remaining 24 states should consider instructing their schools to not implement the moribund Title IX regulation.

Links:

  1. https://titleixforall.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Unofficial-version-of-the-final-regulations.pdf
  2. https://www.k12dive.com/news/title-ix-final-rule-reaction-opponents-supporters/714560/
  3. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/abolish-doe/
  4. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/24a78_f2ah.pdf
  5. https://arkansasag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024-05-07-Arkansas-v.-US-Dept-of-Education-Filemarked.pdf
  6. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/abolish-doe/
  7. https://www.saveservices.org/2024/02/public-opinion-polls-reveal-growing-public-opposition-to-policies-driven-by-gender-agenda/
Categories
Department of Education Due Process Gender Agenda Gender Identity Office for Civil Rights Press Release Title IX

Unanimous: Supreme Court Justices Voice Opposition to Three Major Title IX Provisions

PRESS RELEASE

Robert Thompson: 301-801-0608

Email: info@saveservices.org

Unanimous: Supreme Court Justices Voice Opposition to Three Major Title IX Provisions

WASHINGTON / August 22, 2024 – In a stunning move, all nine Supreme Court justices expressed their opposition to three key provisions in the new Title IX regulation (1). In its August 16 decision in support of the appellate court rulings to block enforcement of the new rule, the nine Justices expressed their unanimous disapproval of the new regulation’s plan to:

  1. Redefine sex to include “gender identity.”
  2. Allow transgender students to use the bathrooms and locker rooms designated for members of the opposite sex.
  3. Create a new, overly broad definition of “hostile environment harassment” (the Title IX regulation brazenly seeks to negate the Supreme Court’s definition of “sexual harassment,” as delineated in its landmark Davis v. Monroe decision (2)).

The SCOTUS decision affirmatively states, “Every Member of the Court agrees respondents are entitled to interim relief as to three provisions of that Rule: 34 CFR §106.10 (2023) (defining sex discrimination), §106.31(a)(2) (prohibiting schools from preventing individuals from accessing certain sex-separated spaces consistent with their gender identity), and §106.2’s definition of hostile environment harassment.”

The opinion comes on the heels of a string of defeats for the Biden Administration’s effort to revamp the Title IX law, enacted in 1972 to ban sex discrimination in schools. Prior to the Supreme Court ruling, the Biden Administration had lost in 7 out of 8 district court decisions, and lost in 3 out of 3 appellate court opinions (3).

As a result, the Title IX policy has been blocked in the states of LA, MS, MT, ID, TN, KY, OH, IN, VA, WV, KS, AK, UT, WY, TX, AR, MO, OA, NE, ND, SD, AL, FL, GA, SC, and OK, as well as in thousands of schools in 45 states attended by children of Moms for Liberty members and by members of the Young America’s Foundation (4). As a result, the 2020 Title IX regulation still remains in effect for those states and schools.

In recent months, the tide has turned against Marxist-inspired transgender ideology. These developments include growing scientific skepticism, opposition in public opinion polls, state-level laws (5), and hostility expressed by political candidates (6).

In addition, SAVE recently established a Citizen Watchdog program to monitor school compliance with the recent judicial Title IX decisions (7).

The Supreme Court decision applies only to the preliminary injunctions against the Title IX regulations, so its August 16 ruling will not be the last word on the subject. But the unanimity of opposition to three key regulatory provisions lends credence to critics of the controversial policy.

In the words of commentator Aaron Flanigan, “Whether or not they realize it now, American parents are standing on the precipice of one of the most far-reaching, extremist, and dangerous transformations of the education system in American history.” (8)

Links:

  1. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/24a78_f2ah.pdf
  2. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1998/97-843
  3. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/abolish-doe/
  4. https://www.scag.gov/media/pskl4phx/ks-v-u-s-dept-of-education-list-of-schools-enjoined.pdf
  5. https://www.saveservices.org/2024/08/states-pass-new-laws-to-block-the-marxist-inspired-gender-agenda/
  6. https://www.saveservices.org/2024/07/schools-urged-to-delay-implementation-of-title-ix-rule-until-legal-challenges-are-resolved/
  7. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/network/
  8. https://amac.us/newsline/education/the-new-biden-harris-rule-that-could-upend-the-election/?utm_objective=website_traffic&utm_source=website&utm_campaign=real_clear_politics&utm_medium=shared_content&utm_content=tnb082024
Categories
Uncategorized

States Pass New Laws to Block the Marxist-Inspired ‘Gender Agenda’

PRESS RELEASE

Robert D. Thompson: 301-801-0608
States Pass New Laws to Block the Marxist-Inspired ‘Gender Agenda’
WASHINGTON / August 19, 2024 – The “Gender Agenda” refers to a Marxist-Inspired effort to re-educate the nation’s youth to believe that one’s sex is fluid and non-binary.  In the words of Shulamith Firestone, ‘the goal of the feminist revolution must be the elimination of the “sex distinction itself: genital differences between human beings would no longer matter culturally…The tyranny of the biological family would be broken.” (1)

 

In response, numerous states have enacted new laws designed to protect women’s sports (2), safeguard parental rights (3), ban pronoun mandates (4), and stop gender transitioning of underage youth (5)

During the recent 2024 legislative sessions, the following 11 laws were enacted to thwart the Gender Agenda:

Women’s Sports:
  •  Ohio House Bill 68 – a bill that prevents transgender athletes from playing women’s sports. (6)
  • New Hampshire HB 1205 – a bill protecting participation on female K-12 sports teams based on sex. (7)
Parental Rights:
  • Tennessee SB 2749 – ‘Families’ Rights and Responsibilities Act,’ which establishes that “[t]he liberty of a parent to the care, custody, and control of the parent’s child, including the right to direct the upbringing, education, health care, and mental health of the child, is a fundamental right.” (8)
Bans on Pronoun Mandates:
 
  • Louisiana House Bill 121 prohibits the use of transgender and nonbinary youths’ chosen names and pronouns in K-12 public schools without parental permission. (9)
  • Tennessee SB 1810 – a bill that requires schools to alert parents if their child has requested to go by a name, or set of pronouns, that differs from their school forms. (10)
  • Idaho House Bill 538, bars teachers from referring to a student by a name or pronoun that doesn’t align with their birth sex, unless parents’ consent. It also broadly enacts protections for public employees, including teachers, who are unwilling to use someone’s preferred name and pronouns. (11)
Stop Gender Transitioning of Underage Youth:
  • Idaho House Bill 668, a bill banning the use of public funding to cover sex-change procedures. (12)
  • Ohio House Bill 68, a bill which blocks gender-affirming care for trans youth. (13)
  • Wyoming bill SF0099, a Children gender change prohibition bill which bans physicians from performing procedures for children related to gender transitioning and gender reassignment. (14)
  •  South Carolina bill H4624 places a ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors. The law also bars health professionals from performing gender-transition surgeries, prescribing puberty blockers and overseeing hormone treatments for patients under 18. (15)
  • New Hampshire HB 619 – a bill that “ensures that life-altering, irreversible surgeries will not be performed on children.” (16)
At the national level, the Department of Education issued a Title IX regulation in April that redefines sex to include “gender identity”. In response, 10 lawsuits have been filed in various states to stop the new policy. To date, temporary injunctions have been issued that block the implementation of the regulation in 26 states. (17)

 

In addition, SAVE has launched a Citizen Watchdog program designed to engage citizens in local grassroots efforts to monitor school activities. (18)

In support of these developments, SAVE is inviting candidates for political office to sign the “Candidate Pledge to Protect Schools, Children, and Families from the Federal Title IX Plan.”

The Candidate Pledge can be viewed online. (19) To date, 108 lawmakers from 27 states have signed the statement. (20) Candidates can indicate their support for the Pledge by sending a confirmatory email to: rthompson@saveservices.org

Links:

Categories
Uncategorized

‘Rapist:’ Historic Lawsuit Against Yale University May Strengthen Defamation Claims Against False Accusers

PRESS RELEASE
 
Robert D. Thompson: 301-801-0608
Email: info@saveservices.org
‘Rapist:’ Historic Lawsuit Against Yale University May Strengthen Defamation Claims Against False Accusers

WASHINGTON / August 14, 2024 – False allegations have become a major problem in the United States (1).  A national survey revealed that 10% of Americans report they have been falsely accused of abuse. The representative survey found 13% of males and 8% of females had been targeted by a false allegation of domestic abuse during their lifetimes. (2)

In 2015, Yale University student Saifullah Khan was accused of rape by Jane Doe. News of the accusation became public knowledge, triggering fevered calls for his immediate removal from the campus. The case was then brought to criminal court, where he was eventually acquitted of sexual assault.

But inexplicably, Khan was later found responsible for sexual misconduct under Yale’s flawed Title IX proceedings. The man was expelled from Yale in 2019. These contradictory decisions prompted him to sue both Yale and Jane Doe for $110 million for wrongful defamation. (3)

Typically, witnesses in criminal cases are afforded immunity from defamation lawsuits over what they say during the proceedings. But the Connecticut Supreme Court determined that Yale’s campus disciplinary process did not offer the same protections as a criminal process, that it was not “quasi-judicial.” (4) So the Court allowed Khan to move forward with his defamation complaint against Jane Doe.

In addition to his lawsuit against Yale and false accuser Doe, Khan filed another defamation complaint in May 2024. He is suing attorney Jennifer Becker and 15 advocacy organizations concerning their amicus brief to the Connecticut Supreme Court that labeled him a “rapist,” even though he had already been cleared of the heinous charges in a criminal court. His lawsuit charged the groups with “defamation, false light, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and abuse of process action.” (5) The damage to his good name and reputation had been done, and the harmful amicus brief still remains on the Internet. (6)

Feminist activists apparently believe they should be able to make accusations of “rape” or “sexual assault” in bad faith and not face legal consequences, even after the accused person is found innocent in a court of law. Defamation lawsuits are one of our nation’s strongest protections against false allegations of a heinous crime.

The outcome of the Connecticut lawsuits will be closely watched by criminal defense attorneys and falsely accused persons around the country.

Links:

1)    https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/false-accusations-and-abuse-claims.html

 2)    https://endtodv.org/2023/02/27/survey-one-in-10-falsely-accused-of-abuse-women-usually-the-accusers-men-most-often-the-targets/

3)     https://www.chronicle.com/article/talking-about-campus-sexual-assault-could-get-you-in-trouble-a-long-running-legal-fight-shows-how

4)      https://www.chronicle.com/article/2-former-students-face-defamation-lawsuits-for-talking-about-sexual-assault

5)    https://www.thecollegefix.com/acquitted-former-student-sues-15-groups-for-defamation-after-they-called-him-a-rapist/

6)      https://www.chronicle.com/article/talking-about-campus-sexual-assault-could-get-you-in-trouble-a-long-running-legal-fight-shows-how

Categories
Uncategorized

SAVE Invites Persons to Become Local Watchdogs to Assure Title IX Compliance

PRESS RELEASE

Robert D. Thompson: 301-801-0608

SAVE Invites Persons to Become Local Watchdogs to Assure Title IX Compliance

WASHINGTON / August 5, 2024 – Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE) today is announcing a new Citizen Watchdog initiative to assure Title IX compliance in 26 states in which judges have ruled against the Biden Administration’s controversial Title IX regulation, and to push back against the Gender Agenda in the other 24 states. (1) 

Over the last two months, federal judges issued a series of strongly worded rulings that blocked the implementation of the Title IX regulation, which redefines sex to include “gender identity.” The judicial decisions currently apply to 26 states around the country: LA, MS, MT, ID, TN, KY, OH, IN, VA, WV, KS, AK, UT, WY, TX. AR, MO, IA, NE, ND, SD, AL, OK, FL, GA and SC. (2) 

In addition, the Kansas ruling exempts over 2,000 schools from the Title IX regulation. (3)  Here is the list of Schools. (4)

On August 1, 2024, the controversial Title IX regulation went into effect in the 24 states not covered by the judicial decisions.  The Department of Education released a statement claiming the new regulation is designed to “ensure that Title IX promotes educational equity and opportunity for all.”  This statement is disingenuous because the new regulation actually serves to remove fundamental civil rights from women competing in athletic events, from students who wish to exercise their free speech rights, and from falsely accused male students who expect to enjoy 14th Amendment due process protections.

While the injunctions handed down against the Title IX rule have been encouraging, some schools are expected to attempt to sidestep the decisions. For example, schools in the 26 states may claim to be following the letter of the law, but individual teachers or counselors may continue their efforts to indoctrinate vulnerable students into Gender Ideology, while school administrators turn a blind eye.

A recent report from the Heritage Foundation reveals that schools in over 1,000 districts are allowed to hide a child’s gender identity from the child’s parents. (5) 

Aaron Lacey, a partner at Thompson Coburn, recently claimed said institutions affected by the injunctions could choose to adopt only certain elements of the new Title IX rule, as long as they remain in compliance with the 2020 Title IX regulation – an approach that could be described as a “disruptive nightmare.” (6) 

In response, SAVE is in the process of identifying hundreds of Citizen Watchdogs around the country who are willing to monitor their schools to assure compliance with the judicial decisions and counter the Gender Agenda. (7) 

If a Citizen Watchdog discovers non-compliance in their local school(s), they should take steps to stop the problem. These approaches include:

  1. Meet with the school principal and/or education superintendent
  2. Speak out at meetings of the local school board
  3. Refer the non-compliance to the state Attorney General office.    

To volunteer for the Watchdog program, persons should send a message to Watchdog@saveservices.org. Please indicate your city and state, and your area of concern, such as women’s sports, due process, etc. To learn about the Citizen Watchdog program, visit: https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/network/  

The Title IX Network consists of 233 organizational members who are working to stop the new Title IX regulation and end the gender agenda.

Links:

1    https://www.saveservices.org/2022-Policy/
2.   https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/abolish-doe/
3.   https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/KansasStateofetalvUnitedStatesDepartmentofEducationetalDocketNo52?doc_id=X7VSH1UVO6B9K1AAI088P6TS9IF
4.  Following is the list of Schools: https://www.scag.gov/media/pskl4phx/ks-v-u-s-dept-of-education-list-of-schools-enjoined.pdf
5.   https://www.heritage.org/gender/report/public-school-gender-policies-exclude-parents-are-unconstitutional
6.   https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/2024/07/17/title-ix-rule-hold-more-670-colleges
7.   https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/network/