Posted on 06/26/2023 9:06:31 PM PDT by Morgana
The Supreme Court this week declined to hear an appeal from a Missouri Christian college seeking to halt a Biden administration policy the college believes may force it to allow biological males in women’s dormitories.
Last February, the College of the Ozarks near Branson, Missouri, asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) directive. The directive stated HUD would enforce the 1968 Fair Housing Act’s prohibition on sex discrimination as a ban on discrimination because of “gender identity.”
College of the Ozarks had previously lost several times in the lower courts after filing a lawsuit against HUD and the Biden administration in April 2021.
The lawsuit responded to President Joe Biden’s January 2021 executive order interpreting the Fair Housing Act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
In February 2021, HUD issued a memorandum instructing the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) to “administer and fully enforce” the Fair Housing Act consistent with the Biden administration’s interpretation.
College of the Ozarks claimed that the guidance conflicted with its policy of assigning housing for students based on sex assigned at birth.
The college believes the HUD directive “forces religious schools to violate their beliefs by opening their dormitories, including dorm rooms and shared shower spaces, to members of the opposite sex,” an announcement on its Facebook page read.
The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a conservative Christian legal nonprofit, represented the college. Its attorneys argued the HUD directive could compel the college to violate biblical principles and traditional Christian beliefs about sex and marriage.
ADF also claimed the policy would force College of the Ozarks to allow biological males access to women’s dorms and shared showers. Otherwise, the school would likely face millions in fines, punitive damages, and legal fees, ADF argued.
One month after the school filed its case, U.S. District Judge Roseann Ketchmark of the Western District of Missouri ruled against the college.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit upheld Judge Ketchmark’s decision in a 2-1 vote in July 2022. The panel concluded that the HUD policy did not directly affect the college. It also affirmed the lower court’s finding that College of the Ozarks lacked standing, or did not have a basis to sue.
That’s because the government has never charged the college with sex discrimination in its housing, the judges wrote, “even though (HUD) interpreted the Fair Housing Act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity between 2012 and 2020.”
“The College has not shown that there exists a credible threat that the defendants will enforce the Fair Housing Act against the institution based on its religiously-based housing policies,” the judges wrote.
ADF attorneys representing the College of the Ozarks filed a petition on February 27 asking the Supreme Court to take up the case.
Nineteen states and multiple Christian colleges and advocacy groups, including the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, backed the petition and submitted friend-of-the-court briefs to the Supreme Court.
But on June 20, the Supreme Court denied the petition.
“The U.S. Supreme Court left this issue unresolved,” ADF Senior Counsel Julie Marie Blake said. “It is wrong to force schools to open girls’ dorms, bedrooms, and shared showers to males, and ADF will do everything in its power to ensure that religious colleges remain free to protect the young women who attend their institutions.”
Even though the Supreme Court won’t review the case, the college has said it may not follow the Biden administration’s order.
As hard as it may be, they need to close their dorms
No, they just enforce their code and if the government disagrees, then it can go to a court.
Sometimes it is just the process.
So if I am reading this correctly...the courts basically said, in effect, “we don’t think you have a problem yet - come back to us if you do in the future.” however, that obviously exposes them to potential fines and they wanted this resolved before such a conflict arose.
Harm hasn’t occurred yet so where’s the standing?
We’ve been assured repeatedly that gender has nothing to do with sex. How exactly then can a statute that deals explicitly with sex be construed to pertain to gender?
We need to start doing some sue and settle on our side ..
find someone to pretend to be upset and sue the school ...
the lawyers come together and make a deal in the schools favor.
precedence set ..
leftys do it all the time.
So the courts wait for the white house to cross that line.
The school heavily screens its prospective students and has an 8%acceptance rate.
Precisely. And that is all this ruling means
Why make it a legal issue? Just announce school policy that it is not allowed.
“The U.S. Supreme Court left this issue unresolved,...” In the name of transparency, who wrote the decision? How many justices took part? And none of that crap that we’ll get back to it later on. Are we left to assume that the Supreme Court is as cowardly, as phony as the Department of Justice?
“That’s because the government has never charged the college with sex discrimination in its housing”
This is standard. The Court will NOT hear challenges that are not “ripe,” that is, if no one has actually been injured, they won’t hear a case just to establish “hypotheticals.” That, in their minds, is WRITING law (it is). COTO can come back if and when they are actually charged with something.
People must insist that “gender identity” has no standing.
There are no limits to tyranny...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.