I Guess We Need To Say It AGAIN: Tangerine 2.0 CANNOT Change Federal STATUTES With His Mere Black Sharpie Scribbles(!). Title IX Edition...

While this may be my first and last mention of the trans-athlete cases. . . and while the Jackson case now through the Fourth Circuit below. . . may ultimately reach the US Supreme Court (and might even be overruled) -- at the moment, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals states the controlling US law, on Title IX -- a federal statute. Note that it was Justice Gorsuch who six terms ago penned the majority opinion in Bostock, which held the statutory term "on the basis of sex" plainly forbid discrimination in same sex marriage rights. [Because the exact same phrase is in play in Title IX, that same logic is likely inescapable here, wiping Tangerine's nonsense, insofar as it falls under Title IX (i.e., federal funding).]

Now, as we've demonstrated (and every court to consider it has held) in the "Freeze" and "Birthright" cases -- and last time (Tangerine 1.0) in the "no Defense funds earmarked by statute" were allowed to be used for Tangerine's "build a wall" despite his putative executive orders (all as upheld by the Supremes in 2019). . . these Trumpy mere Black Sharpie marks / purported executive orders cannot override federal statutes. He cannot undo Congressional acts, all on his own. . . he needs new laws, from Congress -- what a malign loon, See this case, and a bit of it, out of West Virginia:

. . .[W]e conclude the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendants. But we also conclude B.P.J. has shown applying the Act to her would violate Title IX, and the district court thus erred in denying her motion for summary judgment. For that reason, we reverse this portion of the district court’s order and remand with instructions to enter summary judgment for B.P.J. and conduct remedial proceedings on her Title IX claim.

Title IX says “[n]o person . . . shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a).

The defendants do not dispute that middle school sports are an “education program or activity. . . .”

The only remaining question is whether B.P.J. has “on the basis of sex, be[en] excluded from participation in,” “denied the benefits of,” or “subjected to discrimination” in connection with middle school sports. 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). We conclude the answer is yes. . . .

So -- that is conclusive: Trump's latest "trans athlete" exec. order is. . . meaningless. Any entity getting federal funding for athletics MUST comply with Title IX's clear statutory language, and all court orders construing that language. Period.

Onward. There will be a case filed in federal court by the ACLU shortly to make all this iron clad. Cheers. Hushing now.

नमस्ते