Amicus Brief: Louisiana v. U.S. Dept. of Education

Three related cases challenging the new Title IX regulations are currently being briefed before the Fifth, Sixth, and Tenth Circuits, respectively. Plaintiff states, school boards, and individuals challenged the rule (Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance, 89 Fed. Reg. 33474), which redefines sex discrimination to include “discrimination on the basis of gender identity, sexual orientation, sex stereotypes, and sex characteristics.” The plaintiffs argue that the rule “contravenes the plain text of Title IX by redefining “sex” to include “gender identity” (which is nowhere defined in the new rules), violates government employees’ First Amendment rights, and is the result of arbitrary and capricious rulemaking.” District courts in each of those circuits ruled for the plaintiffs, and the Supreme Court maintained these stays of the full rule going into effect pending final resolution of all appeals.

In the first appeal, before the Sixth Circuit, the Manhattan Institute filed a brief alongside four individuals who experienced gender dysphoria when they were adolescents and young adults, were led to take cross-sex hormones and undertake surgical procedures, and now regret taking that path because they realized their bodies had been irreversibly altered based on false promises. Now it’s time for the second appeal, before the Fifth Circuit, and we re-up our previous brief. We present these detransitioners’ personal stories and also build on our previous filings to present scientific evidence demonstrating that youthful gender transition is harmful.

Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow and director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan Institute. Follow him on Twitter here.

Photo by Getty Images