Paxton leads effort to stop Biden Administration from forcing “Sexual Orientation” and “Gender Identity” policies on states
SAN ANTONIO (KTSA News) — Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is filing an amicus brief in the Cincinnati-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to stop what he says is the Biden Administration’s relentless pursuit of new so-called sexual orientation and gender identity policies.
Attorney General Paxton says he had successfully sued to stop the implementation of two related Biden Administration rules, including one by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) requiring employers to enact rules governing bathroom, locker room, and shower usage, as well as dress codes and pronoun usage to be predicated on “gender identity” as opposed to biological sex. The federal government acknowledged defeat when it opted not to appeal the ruling.
Similarly, a Tennessee-led coalition previously sued the EEOC and U.S. Department of Education over the same rule for public school districts. In that case, a federal district court issued an injunction against the policies, and the Biden Administration is now appealing the case. The amicus brief filed by Attorney General Paxton supports keeping the injunction in place.
“Joe Biden has demonstrated that there are no limits on what he’s willing to do to transform his extremist views into federal policy,” said Attorney General Paxton. “The activists in his Administration are attempting to create illegal rules that threaten children, families, and workers, all while completely ignoring basic biology. However, they have already lost in court in Texas, and I will relentlessly fight them if they try again.”
Attorney General Paxton says at issue in both cases is the Administration’s unreasonable misapplication of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which banned certain forms of discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” Although the Supreme Court made it clear that Bostock had a narrow application within the employment law context, that has not stopped the Biden Administration from using the decision as a basis to promote its radical agenda on a far broader basis.