Letter from House Republicans on admin. bathroom policy seems to catch Obama with pants down

Letter from House Republicans on admin. bathroom policy seems to catch Obama with pants down
Image: Drop of Light/Shutterstock

A group of House Republicans sent a letter to the Obama administration demanding an explanation for the reasoning behind a recent order compelling every public school in the country to accept transgender bathroom usage.

The administration sparked a massive row with Republicans in May when it issued a “Dear Colleague” letter decreeing that all public schools in the country allow students to use a bathroom that aligns with their preferred gender identity, rather than being restricted based on their biological sex. The administration justified the decree by stating it was necessary for complying with Title IX, a 1972 law barring sex discrimination in schools receiving federal funds.

Several state governments have already challenged the administration’s reasoning.

The letter, sent Monday to Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Secretary of Education John King, is signed by Rep. John Kline , chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, along with Reps. Todd Rokita and Virginia Foxx , who chair subcommittees dedicated to K-12 education and college education, respectively.

The letter asks a series of pointed questions about how the Obama administration justifies its bathroom order, with the intent of showing that the law is based on a warping of existing statutes.

For instance, the administration has argued Title IX justifies the order because a ban on sex discrimination also amounts to a ban on all discrimination related to gender identity. But the letter notes that, in 2013, Congress reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act and included a non-discrimination clause that treated sex and gender identity as separate categories. That law’s wording, the letter suggests, is powerful evidence against the Obama administration’s rhetoric:

This provision … clearly shows congressional intent to include ‘gender identity’ and ‘sex’ as separate classes under federal nondiscrimination law. In light of this, provide justification for your decision to ignore this clear expression of congressional intent in your interpretation of Title IX.

The letter asks the Obama administration to divulge a host of internal emails and memos relating to how the order was created, which could potentially provide ammo for Republican critics trying to undermine the law.

Besides questioning the legality of the new decree, the letter also criticizes the administration’s legal reasoning and suggests it’s put schools in a bind where they may end up violating Title IX no matter what they do:

This new guidance appears to present the possibility of competing Title IX claims if, for example, a female sexual assault survivor feels threatened using bathroom or locker room facilities with a biological male. How will you advise schools to address this possibility?

The letter isn’t the first one in which Republicans in Congress have pressured the Obama administration to justify its interpretation of Title IX. Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma has sent multiple letters to the Department of Education disputing a 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter that requires schools to apply a low standard of evidence in assessing sexual assault claims.

Kline, Rokita and Foxx request that the administration reply to their questions within two weeks.

This report, by Blake Neff, was cross-posted by arrangement with the Daily Caller News Foundation.

LU Staff

LU Staff

Promoting and defending liberty, as defined by the nation’s founders, requires both facts and philosophical thought, transcending all elements of our culture, from partisan politics to social issues, the workings of government, and entertainment and off-duty interests. Liberty Unyielding is committed to bringing together voices that will fuel the flame of liberty, with a dialogue that is lively and informative.


Commenting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

You may use HTML in your comments. Feel free to review the full list of allowed HTML here.