Quote Originally Posted by PoliSciGuy View Post
This is a pretty profound misunderstanding of how things work. POTUS can direct his education and justice departments to make certain statements and regulatory interpretations in house, but the actual legal interpretation of the law is up to the Courts, not POTUS. And under Bostock, the Courts have shown that their interpretation "on the basis of sex" is indeed broad, which aligns with their earlier Title IX ruling in North Haven. To go against that in a Title IX case would be hugely ignorant of the existing precedent (and would require Gorsuch and Roberts to suddenly do an about face without a legal leg to stand on).
Well, that's precisely what l've been saying at the end of thelast couple of posts. Of course the courts have the final say.

The administrations still have very different ways of interpreting the rule even still. The longer it goes on, the more lawsuits will consistently define it. Harking to another post where someone criticized me for bringing up hypotheticals, had the original Congress who passed the law anticipated hypotheticals, many of these suits could have been avoided. As it is, the bureaucrats have been setting guidelines that, recently, have gone from one extreme to the other.fy458i9

"Congress kept the core provision of Title IX very brief, only one sentence long. The interpretation and implementation of Title IX was left to the executive, whom Congress expressly "authorized and directed to effectuate the [statute] by issuing rules, regulations, or orders of general applicability which shall be consistent with achievement of [its] objectives ..."[3]"