Court ruling cites Chevron decision by Supreme Court to revoke regulations on transgender healthcare

In a recent development, a federal judge has stated that the Biden administration’s latest interpretation of Title IX cannot oblige healthcare providers in Mississippi to perform transgender-related services. This ruling came after the Supreme Court overturned the Chevron doctrine, according to the judge.

In April, the Department of Health and Human Services rolled out new regulations that impose penalties on healthcare providers who discriminate against individuals seeking care based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. The agency made it clear that it will withdraw federal funding from healthcare providers and insurers that refuse to offer gender-affirming care. This move comes after the HHS reinterpreted Title IX to encompass gender identity and sexual orientation, and the agency has released guidance to enforce this interpretation.

On Wednesday, Judge Louis Guirola Jr. made a decision stating that the actions taken by HHS as a government agency went beyond its authorized powers.

According to the judge, HHS went beyond its legal authority by utilizing the Bostock decision to apply to Section 1557’s integration of Title IX in the May 2024 Rule. As per his statement, the plaintiffs have established a significant possibility of succeeding in their claim.

The judge made a reference to Bostock, which is the 2020 Supreme Court ruling that the Biden administration has utilized to revamp sex discrimination regulations.

The judge stated that HHS made an unreasonable decision by using Bostock’s analysis to merge the term “on the basis of sex” with “on the basis of gender identity”.

The healthcare system’s sex discrimination protections have been expanded by the government agency’s re-interpretation of the Title IX regulation to include gender identity and sexual orientation. However, Mississippi is among the 15 Republican-led states that have challenged the HHS interpretation of the rule, citing its unconstitutionality and the harm it poses to developing children, as it places undue regulations on healthcare providers.

More News:  5 Worst Places to Live in Minnesota

States expressed concern that they could face legal action from both employees and patients if they were compelled to use taxpayer funds to cover untested and expensive gender transition procedures under Medicaid and state health plans – even for minors who may suffer irreversible harm.

On Wednesday, Guirola pointed out in his ruling that the current administration’s understanding of the term “sex” differs from what it meant when the regulations were initially passed.

According to Guirola, Title IX was enacted by Congress in 1972 with the common understanding that the term ‘sex’ referred to the physiological differences between men and women, specifically in relation to reproductive functions. It is interesting to note that shortly before the enactment of Title IX, the Supreme Court declared that the two sexes were not interchangeable.

Guirola’s decision stated that the regulation was designed to safeguard “biological sex” in the context of its enactment. According to the decision, the Biden administration did not have the power to modify the definition of the term to include “gender identity.”

Drawing on the Supreme Court’s revamp of the Chevron doctrine, the judge relied on it as the foundation for his ruling. This dealt a significant blow to the power of federal agencies as the top court invalidated their authority to interpret laws. Following the landmark decision by the Supreme Court last Friday, the federal ruling on Title IX is the latest regulation to crumble.

Reference Article

Avatar photo
MBS Staff
Articles: 8040

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *