Congress finds the following:
(1)
In enacting title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (
20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.), after careful deliberation and debate and more than 250 educational proposals leading up to the introduction and enactment of title IX, Congress explicitly envisioned a prohibition against “discrimination on the basis of sex,” to mean any discrimination based on biological distinctions between male and female. This is supported by the plain and ordinary meaning of the statutory text, by the Congressional Record, and by title IX’s enacting regulations.
(2)
Executive branch administrative or regulatory actions, policies, or guidances, from the U.S. Department of Education, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, or other agencies or entities, that seek to rewrite or reinterpret the plain and unambiguous language of title IX as having meaning beyond “sex” as the biological distinctions between male and female—including such constructs as “sexual orientation and gender identity”—not only inappropriately misconstrue title IX’s plain and clear statutory language, but they also contravene congressional intent behind its enactment, and misapply Supreme Court precedent on sex discrimination. Additionally and importantly, any such administrative actions by fiat usurp and circumvent legislative powers that are the sole province of Congress under article I, section 1 of the Constitution.
(3)
In its 2020 decision Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. (2020), the U.S. Supreme Court expressly limited its decision to and narrowly addressed employment issues, did not construe title IX, and expressly disclaimed application to “other federal or state laws that prohibit sex discrimination”. Thus, it is altogether and entirely improper, inappropriate, and misguided to construe Bostock as applying to title IX.