'Rogue' Biden judge ignores biological truth, blocks Trump's common-sense passport policy



Gender ideologues' narrative about sex, identity, and the supposed benefits of medical transvestism has collapsed in recent years under the weight of comprehensive scientific studies. Polling shows the American public also majoritively rejects their core claims and policy aims.

With science and public opinion largely against them, gender ideologues now appear to be primarily fighting their war against common sense in the courts, where they are, for the most part, losing. Meddlesome U.S. district court judges are, however, doing their part to delay the final defeat of gender ideology, at least where the law and federal policy are concerned.

'Gender ideology is internally inconsistent.'

A day before the Supreme Court's decision to uphold Tennessee's ban on sex-change genital mutilations and sterilizing puberty blockers for minors, a Biden judge blocked the Trump administration from requiring passports to accurately reflect the holders' sex.

White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly said in a statement to Blaze News, "This is yet another attempt by a rogue judge to thwart President Trump's agenda and push radical gender ideology that defies biological truth."

"There are only two genders, there is no such thing as gender 'X,' and the president was given a mandate by the American people to restore common sense to the federal government," added Kelly.

RELATED: Trump claims another scalp in war on gender ideology: Children's Hospital LA to shutter child sex-change center

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

On his first day back in office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order rejecting gender ideology and instructing the government to recognize only two sexes, male and female.

"'Gender ideology' replaces the biological category of sex with an ever-shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity, permitting the false claim that males can identify as and thus become women and vice versa, and requiring all institutions of society to regard this false claim as true," Trump said in his order.

The president noted further that "gender ideology is internally inconsistent, in that it diminishes sex as an identifiable or useful category but nevertheless maintains that it is possible for a person to be born in the wrong sexed body."

The president directed his secretaries of state and homeland security to ensure that government-issued identification documents, including passports and visas, were reality-affirming — as they had been until 2021, when the Biden administration began allowing people to choose their own sex marker as well as a third marker, "X," instead of an "M" or an "F" marker.

RELATED: The culture war isn’t a distraction — it’s the main front

Blaze Media Illustration

Several transvestites joined the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Massachusetts, and Covington & Burling LLP in a lawsuit over the passport policy earlier this year.

U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick granted them a preliminary injunction in April preventing the State Department's enforcement of Trump's Executive Order 14168 while the lawsuit played out — but only as it applied to six of the plaintiffs.

Kobick suggested that the plaintiffs' inability to extend their self-deception to their federal documents would make them more "likely to experience worsened gender dysphoria, anxiety, and psychological distress, and they will face a greater risk of experiencing harassment and violence."

The Massachusetts-based Biden judge expanded her injunction on Wednesday after the plaintiffs amended their complaint and moved to apply the preliminary injunction to other potentially affected gender-benders whom they wanted broadly to be certified as a class.

Adopting the language of gender ideologues, Kobick granted the plaintiffs class certification, meaning that the lawsuit can now apply to "people whose gender identity is different from the sex assigned to them under the Passport Policy and/or who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria," people who simply want their passport to indicate the wrong sex, and "all people who currently want, or in the future will want, a U.S. passport and wish to use an 'X' sex designation."

'The government has failed to meet this standard.'

"Even assuming a preliminary injunction inflicts some constitutional harm on the Executive Branch, such harm is the consequence of the State Department's adoption of a Passport Policy that likely violates the constitutional rights of thousands of Americans," wrote Kobick.

RELATED: Behind the rainbow curtain: Who is funding the trans agenda targeting kids?

Photo by PATRICK T. FALLON/AFP via Getty Images

"The Executive Order and the Passport Policy on their face classify passport applicants on the basis of sex and thus must be reviewed under intermediate judicial scrutiny," added the Biden judge. "That standard requires the government to demonstrate that its actions are substantially related to an important governmental interest. The government has failed to meet this standard."

Li Nowlin-Sohl, a senior staff attorney for the ACLU's LGBTQ and HIV Project, called the ruling "a historic win in the fight against this administration's efforts to drive transgender people out of public life. The State Department’s policy is a baseless barrier for transgender, nonbinary, and intersex Americans and denies them the dignity we all deserve."

When asked about the ruling, a State Department spokesperson told Blaze News that as a general matter, officials "do not comment on pending or ongoing litigation."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

'Pardons for me, no justice for thee': Biden vetoes bill that would have let Trump nominate much-needed judges



President Joe Biden appears keen to maximize consequential, controversial, and costly decisions in his final days as president.

Following President-elect Donald Trump's landslide victory last month, Biden and his administration undermined the Republican's goal of peace in Ukraine and risked turning America's proxy war with Russia into a direct nuclear conflict with the authorization of use of long-range American missiles; took steps to "Trump-proof" the federal bureaucracy; gave his felonious son Hunter Biden an "unconditional" blanket pardon and commuted the sentences of child-killers, grifters, and other loathsome convicts; rushed through DEI-satisfying judges; and set high-reaching greenhouse gas emission targets.

Par for the course, Biden — set to end his presidency with a record-low approval rating — vetoed a bipartisan bill on Monday that would have created 66 new judicial seats in the coming years in understaffed federal courts across the country.

While the 82-year-old Democrat suggested that there remained unanswered questions about the potential allocation of judges, legal experts and lawmakers who championed the Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved Act of 2024 indicated Biden's concerns were unfounded. Critics suggested Biden simply wanted to preclude his popular Republican successor from nominating dozens of new judges over the course of his second term.

'The President is more enthusiastic about using his office to provide relief to his family members who received due process.'

Reuters noted that had the bill been enacted, Trump would have been able to fill 22 permanent and three temporary federal judgeships in his second term in addition to the over 100 judicial appointments he is already expected to make.

Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.), who co-sponsored the initial Senate bill with Democratic Sen. Chris Coons (Del.), noted on X, "Issuing this veto is partisan politics at its worst. The JUDGES Act is a fair bill with strong bipartisan support that would have created 66 judgeships over three presidential terms to address our judicial backlog."

"The President is more enthusiastic about using his office to provide relief to his family members who received due process than he is about giving relief to the millions of regular Americans who are waiting years for their due process," continued Young. "Biden's legacy will be 'pardons for me, no justice for thee.'"

The authors of the legislation noted that by the end of fiscal year 2022, district courts were overwhelmed and in many cases understaffed: "As of March 31, 2023, there were 686,797 pending cases in the district courts of the United States, with an average of 491 weighted case filings per judgeship over a 12-month period."

Although authorized by Article III of the U.S. Constitution to establish judgeships in district courts, Congress has not done so since 2003. The Judicial Conference of the United States recommended to Congress in March 2023 the creation of new district and court of appeals judgeships to address the workload demands facing certain courts.

The JUDGES Act of 2024, which embraced the conference's recommendations, passed the Senate in October with an amendment by unanimous consent — back when Democrats figured they would have fellow traveler Kamala Harris making the judicial nominations.

'This veto is about power, not justice.'

Weeks after Trump won the election, Biden threatened to veto the bill.

The Federal Judges Association and Federal Bar Association implored the geriatric Democrat and members of the House to get over their doubts and similarly pass the bill, stressing in a Dec. 11 statement that it would add judges "in a non-partisan manner and through its creative staggered approach to creating these new judgeships, offers the best chance in three decades for addressing the increasing judicial caseload crisis."

Judge J. Michelle Childs of the FJA and Glen McMurry, president of the FBA, noted further in their joint statement, "Failure to enact the JUDGES Act will condemn our judicial system to more years of unnecessary delays and will deprive parties in the most impacted districts from obtaining appropriate justice and timely relief under the rule of law."

The House of Representatives passed the bill on Dec. 12 in a 236-173 vote.

Following the bipartisan embrace of the JUDGES Act in Congress, Democratic Rep. Lou Correa (Calif.) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) penned a letter to Biden urging him to reconsider his veto threat, noting that "addressing the needs of our judiciary is not a partisan issue but a national imperative."

The requests by judges and lawmakers of various stripes evidently fell on deaf ears.

In his veto announcement Monday, Biden stated, "The House of Representative's [sic] hurried action fails to resolve key questions in the legislation, especially regarding how the new judgeships are allocated, and neither the House of Representatives nor the Senate explored fully how the work of senior status judges and magistrate judges affects the need for new judgeships," according to a White House transcript.

Biden suggested further that the "efficient and effective administration of justice" requires that these questions undergo further study and insinuated that helping courts meet workload demands — a problem recognized by members of both major parties — was not the "true motivating force behind the passage of this bill."

Judge Robert Conrad Jr., the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, said in response, "The president’s veto of the JUDGES Act is extremely disappointing. Providing additional judgeships is essential to improving access to the courts and necessary for the efficient and effective administration of justice."

Conrad noted that Biden wasn't just spiking a carefully considered bill that was based on thorough analysis but breaking from a custom he appeared previously happy to uphold.

"This veto is a deviation from the long historical pattern of approving judgeship bills that awarded new judgeships to sitting presidents. The president's veto is contrary to the actions of Senator Biden who helped pass many of those bills," wrote Conrad. "It is regrettable that the administration failed to support the federal judiciary and rejected this bipartisan, bicameral, and interbranch agreement. The president’s veto will contribute to the pattern of growing caseloads and increasing backlogs that hurt litigants and weaken public confidence in our courts."

Rep. Issa called the veto "a petty, partisan, and pointless act by a presidency that can't end soon enough."

"Very disappointed President Biden has vetoed the JUDGES Act, despite strong bipartisan support in Congress," tweeted Rep. David Valadao (R-Calif.). "This decision leaves countless individuals struck in a backlogged legal system without the judges needed to address delays."

Republican Rep. Harriet Hageman of Wyoming emphasized that Biden's veto was purely a partisan maneuver, noting, "The JUDGES Act of 2024 was 'necessary' until the point Republicans would hold a trifecta. This veto is about power, not justice."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Teacher fired over fidelity to her Christian beliefs just made a California district pay



A California teacher was accused of misconduct and fired last year after refusing to comply with LGBT activists' radical gender dogma at the expense of her Christian faith.

Jessica Tapia previously taught gym, but last week she taught the Jurupa Unified School District that trampling Americans' free exercise of religion and freedom of speech can still prove costly even in a Democrat-dominated state.

Background

In recent years, the JUSD in Riverside County has fully embraced gender ideology, codifying it into its policies.

For instance, the district considers a refusal to address a student "by a name and the pronouns consistent with the student's gender identity" as harassment. Exclusion of a male from girls' bathrooms or from participating in girls' activities similarly qualifies as harassment.

Parents Defending Education highlighted that the JUSD also has a policy that keeps parents in the dark about their children's so-called gender identity.

'The directives required Ms. Tapia lie to parents about their children's gender identity.'

"A student's intersex, nonbinary, transgender or gender-nonconforming status is the student's private information," says the policy. "The district shall only disclose the information to others with the student's prior written consent, except when the disclosure is otherwise required by law or when the district has compelling evidence that disclosure is necessary to preserve the student's physical or mental well-being."

This is in keeping the California Department of Education, which maintains that "disclosing that a student is transgender without the student’s permission may violate California's antidiscrimination law."

When it comes to a JUSD student's effort to reject reality and masquerade as a member of the opposite sex, "the compliance officer may discuss with the student any need to disclose the student's intersex, nonbinary, transgender or gender-nonconformity status or gender identity or gender expression to the student's parents/guardians and/or others, including other students, teacher(s), or other adults on campus."

These policies, which serve to undermine parental rights, are par for the course in California, which has legally enabled transvestic males to invade girls' sports, programs, and restrooms since at least 2013.

Refusal to live by lies

According to her May 2023 complaint, Tapia had worked in the JUSD in various capacities since 2014. Despite apparently enjoying a great rapport with parents, students, and faculty members alike, she received a notice of unprofessional conduct on Sept. 30, 2022.

The suit claims Tapia was accused of "posting offensive content on her public Instagram account, referencing her faith during conversations with students, and expressing controversial opinions on issues pertaining to gender identity."

Tapia has made no secret of her religious views on marriage, transvestism, and sexual orientation, anchoring her understanding in a constitutionally protected biblical worldview.

'God created two sexes: male and female.'

In the wake of the misconduct notice, Tapia was reportedly presented with "A Plan of Assistance and Directives," which required her complicity in the district's advancement of gender ideology and undermining of parental rights.

"The directives required Ms. Tapia lie to parents about their children's gender identity, refer to students by their preferred pronouns, refrain from expressing her religious beliefs with students or on her social media, and allow students to use the bathroom or locker room that matched their preferred sex," said the complaint.

Unable to comply on the basis of her Christian beliefs and altogether unwilling to live by lies, Tapia requested accommodation from the district.

After all, she "believes that God defines human sexuality, and that men and women are created in the image of God," said the complaint. Additionally, she maintains that "God created two sexes: male and female."

She was refused accommodation and was subsequently canned.

Tapia indicated that after reaching out to Charlie Kirk, CEO of Turning Point USA, and Pastor Jack Hibbs, the Christian teacher connected with the pro bono law firm Advocates for Faith and Freedom, she then sued the JUSD.

Mariah Gondeiro, then-vice president and legal counsel for Advocates for Faith and Freedom, claimed that "Jessica Tapia was not dismissed for any wrongdoing, rather, she was dismissed for her Christian beliefs. This is a clear violation of our Constitutional rights."

'If the school district's actions were legal, no teacher of faith would be qualified to serve as a public school teacher.'

The lawsuit — which ultimately named the district, superintendent Trenton Hansen, and assistant superintendent Daniel Brooks as defendants — claimed Tapia had been deprive of both the free exercise of religion and the freedom of speech. Additionally, it accused the district of violating the Due Process Clause, Title VII, and California's Fair Employment and Housing Act.

Triumphant

While the JUSD refuses to admit wrongdoing, it approved an out-of-court settlement on May 13. The district will accordingly pay Tapia $285,000 as well as $75,000 for her attorneys' fees.

"Today's settlement serves as a reminder that religious freedom is protected, no matter your career," Julianne Fleischer, legal counsel for Advocates for Faith and Freedom, said in a statement. "If the school district's actions were legal, no teacher of faith would be qualified to serve as a public school teacher."

"Jessica's story is one of faithful courage. She fought back to ensure her school district was held accountable and that no other teacher has to succumb to this type of discrimination," added Fleischer.

'I want teachers to be confident in the fact that the best thing we can do for students is educate in truth, not deception.'

"What happened to me can happen to anybody, and I want the next teacher to know that it is worth it to take a stand for what is right," said Tapia. "Across the country, we are seeing teachers' freedom of speech and religious liberty violated through policies that require them to forsake their morals. I want teachers to be confident in the fact that the best thing we can do for students is educate in truth, not deception."

Per the terms of the settlement, both sides will refrain from badmouthing one another or taking further legal action. Additionally, Tapia agreed not to seek another job with the district.

Tapia appears to have found a calling besides helping the JUSD hide students' confusion from their parents. She has joined forces with Advocates for Faith and Freedom to launch "Teachers Don't Lie."

According to its website, Teacher's Don't Lie "is to support teachers of faith who are feeling the weight of the darkness that has infiltrated the education system. We believe teachers of faith have the right to be in the public education system without sacrificing their convictions and the truth."

The group serves to equip teachers with the constitutional understanding and legal backing to stand firm when their religious beliefs are targeted by radical school districts.

Jacquie Paul, a JUSD spokeswoman, suggested the settlement was a "compromise of a disputed claim," reported the Los Angeles Times.

"The decision to settle this case was made ... in the best interest of the students, such that the district can continue to dedicate all of its resources and efforts to educate and support its student population regardless of their protected class," said Paul.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Seattle scraps gifted and talented school programs because they supposedly had too many white and Asian students



Seattle Public Schools is effectively killing off its gifted and talented program, caving to leftists in and outside the district who have long complained about the racial demographics of the Highly Capable Cohort program, which evidently failed to satisfy their utopian expectations.

Forsaking quality and meritocracy, SPS has indicated it will instead pursue an alternative that will supposedly be "more inclusive, equitable, and culturally sensitive."

Background

State law has long required that Washington schools provide and maintain programs "for highly capable students."

Qualifying students are those "who perform or show potential for performing at significantly advanced academic levels when compared with others of their age, experiences, or environments. Outstanding abilities are seen within students' general intellectual aptitudes, specific academic abilities, and/or creative productivities within a specific domain."

By virtue of highly capable students of any race being academically superior to other students, they are necessarily unequal.

The Seattle Times reported that as of last year, the HCC comprised roughly 5,700 students. This cohort is made up of those who scored in the top 2% on standardized exams.

Unsurprisingly, recognition of this inequality has been a sore point for leftists who figure that education ought not only to standardize generations of children by their low standards but also to produce so-called equitable outcomes.

Former SPS superintendent Denis Juneau called for dismantling the HCC program in 2019, claiming, "It is very [racially] disproportionate."

The identitarian NAACP Youth Council and other leftist groups have championed the elimination of the program in the years since, claiming it was "built upon a foundation of white supremacy and constructed with the intent to perpetuate the segregation of schools on the basis of race and socioeconomic status."

The NAACP Youth Council noted that in the 2020-2021 school year, only 1.8% of the district's 8,130 black students, then amounting to 15% of the student body, were eligible for the HCC. 13.4% of Asian students and 63.2% of white students, who altogether accounted for 13.1% and 45.6% of the overall student body, respectively, were eligible. 16.2% of mixed-race students and 5.25% of Hispanics were eligible.

In the 2022-2023 school year, the Seattle Times indicated that 52% of HCC students at SPS were white, 16% were Asian, and 3.4% were black.

"We, the NAACP Youth Council, want the HCC program abolished from SPS," wrote the identitarians. "Every student deserves an equitable and anti-racist education that recognizes their brilliance. A program built to discriminate against students has no room for fixing."

Indistinction

SPS began phasing out HCC schools in 2021. All will apparently be eliminated by 2027. In the way of HCC institutions affiliated with the district, there are presently three elementary schools, five middle schools, and three high schools.

The next step in the war on excellence and distinction will be the implementation of the so-called "Highly Capable Neighborhood School Model" in every school beginning in September 2024.

Under this model, students of all abilities will be lumped into the same classroom. Teachers will then reportedly be tasked with creating individualized learning plans for each of their 20 to 30 students.

According to SPS, "All teachers will provide teaching and learning that is delivered with Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and differentiated to meet the needs of students within their grade level. The approach includes three tiers of service for students depending on individual needs, delivered in a way that honors individual cultures and backgrounds."

While all students will participate in Tier 1 learning, individuals flagged as needing more advanced or involved learning will be awarded Tier 2 services. After participating in Tier 1 and Tier 2 services, students, now assessed yearly, found still needing "something in addition to meet their complex needs," will receive Tier 3 services.

Critics suspect that SPS will ultimately bungle the implementation of its new scheme, especially because its $105 million deficit means it lacks the funds to train teachers on how to help highly capable students, reported the Seattle Times.

Teachers have complained anonymously to KOMO-TV that the district has provided teachers with no extra time, aid in the classroom, curricular help, or compensation to meet the unique needs of every student in a single classroom.

"I was a classroom teacher for 14 years. It's really hard to provide services to students when you have a group of kindergartners learning phonics and then you have a kindergarten[er] that's like fluently reading Harry Potter," said Reby Parsley, a gifted education specialist with the Washington Association of Educators of the Talented and Gifted.

"It seems to me that kids on maybe both extremes are going to be underserved," Erika Ruberry, a parent of a second-grader at a HCC elementary, told the Times.

Karen Stukovsky, a mother who has three kids at HCC schools, said, "You have some kids who can barely read and some kids who are reading 'Harry Potter' in first grade or kindergarten. How are you going to not only get those kids up to grade level and also challenge those kids who are already way above grade level?"

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!