A Texas district court recently sided with the state in its legal battle against the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) over bathroom and pronoun policies set during the Biden administration. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed the lawsuit to challenge the EEOC’s redefinition of “sex” in Title VII, which was part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case was brought to the U.S. District Court’s Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division, the same court that previously struck down similar guidance in 2021.
Back in 2021, the EEOC introduced rules that required employers to make accommodations for employees based on their “gender preferences and identities,” allowing them to use facilities and pronouns that align with their gender identity rather than biological sex. Texas argued that this guidance was unlawful and would create additional liabilities for employers, including the state itself, which employs a substantial number of people. According to the Texas comptroller’s office, Texas employed about 140,000 individuals in September 2022.
The lawsuit was expanded to include the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services when it introduced a rule threatening to cut federal funding to states that classify “sex-change” procedures on minors as child abuse. The Biden administration’s policies would have also allowed biological males to access women’s facilities and eliminate sex-specific dress codes. However, the court vacated the 2021 guidance and ruled in favor of Texas, issuing a binding judgment against the EEOC.
Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk delivered a similar ruling, addressing the 2024 guidance that sought to broaden the definition of “discrimination” to include “gender identity.” Paxton argued that this would have opened the door for lawsuits against private and state employers who didn’t comply with so-called “transgender inclusive policies.” Paxton expressed that the Biden Administration attempted to misuse federal law to push radical gender ideology onto employers.
“The federal government has no right to force Texans to play along with delusions or ignore biological reality in our workplaces,” Paxton stated. He emphasized that this decision is a win for common sense and the rule of law. Kacsmaryk’s 34-page decision noted that the EEOC overstepped its authority and that its guidance was inconsistent with historical and legal interpretations of Title VII.
The judge also rejected the EEOC’s interpretation of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County. He argued that the EEOC failed to provide binding authority for its expanded definition of “sex” and contradicted Title VII by including transgender bathroom and dress preferences under discriminatory harassment. Kacsmaryk pointed out that if Congress intended to redefine “sex” in Title VII to include “sexual orientation” or “gender identity,” it would have done so explicitly.
Kacsmaryk clearly stated, “Congress has the power to amend statutes to add accommodations, EEOC does not.” This highlights the overreach of the EEOC’s enforcement guidance. The decision listed specific sections of the guidance deemed unlawful and vacated them.
The Trump administration’s EEOC is not expected to appeal this ruling. Conservative news outlets like Fox News and Newsmax have echoed the sentiment that this ruling is a victory against federal overreach. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to traditional interpretations of law.
This ruling aligns with the values shared by leaders like President Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, who believed in the restraint of governmental power. It serves as a reminder of the importance of preserving individual liberties and states’ rights. The court’s decision reinforces the notion that policy changes should come through Congress, not unelected officials.
Overall, this legal victory for Texas reflects a broader pushback against what some perceive as an overextension of federal authority. The ruling is seen as a defense of biological realities and a reinforcement of the rule of law. As the story continues to unfold, it remains a significant moment for those advocating for conservative principles in today’s legal landscape.
