该指令被小查尔斯·阿奇利法官阻止. 田纳西州东区, 特朗普任命的人, after a coalition of 20 Republican attorneys general sued last year, 路透社报道.
The plaintiffs argued the federal directive clashed with state laws and prevented states from enforcing their own laws that banned transgender school bathroom use.
Judge Atchley agreed, saying in his opinion the states “cannot continue regulating pursuant to their state laws while simultaneously complying with Defendants’ 指导,” 路透社报道.
The states also argued the Biden administration’s Justice Department, the Department of Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — the defendants in the case — improperly justified the bathroom directive through the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County.
In the case, Clayton County fired county employee Gerald Bostock for “unbecoming” behavior after he participated in a gay recreational softball league. The Supreme Court ruled in 2020, that workplace sex discrimination in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should extend to sexual orientation and gender identity.
The high court said in its decision they were not deciding whether “sex-segregated bathrooms, locker rooms, and dress codes’ violate Title VII.”
在 2021, after President Biden was sworn into office and appointed new leadership, 的 教育部门 issued guidance to apply the 2020 case to schools.
The department suggested the court’s decision should be applied to sex-segregated bathrooms — but Judge Atchley disagreed.
最高法院 in Bostock “explicitly refused to decide whether ‘sex-segregated bathrooms, locker rooms, and dress codes’ violate Title VII,” the judge said in his opinion, 路透社报道.
Oklahoma Attorney General John O’Connor, who was among the plaintiffs, called the decision “a major victory for women’s sports and for the privacy and safety of girls and women in their school bathrooms and locker rooms,” per the report.