Joshua Erlich: this is full on nonsense. nothing in Bostock depended on a "but for" standard. it was a textual ruling on the meaning of "sex." this is fully made up bullshit.

this is full on nonsense. nothing in Bostock depended on a "but for" standard. it was a textual ruling on the meaning of "sex." this is fully made up bullshit.

The Biden administration cannot enforce new anti-discrimination rules in health care for transgender Americans, a Mississippi federal judge ruled, citing a recent landmark Supreme Court ruling that weakened the power of federal agencies.

Judge cites new Supreme Court ruling in blocking health care anti-discrimination protections for transgender Americans | CNN Politicswww.cnn.com The Biden administration cannot enforce new anti-discrimination rules in health care for transgender Americans, a federal judge in Mississippi ruled Wednesday, citing a recent landmark Supreme Court r...

there's no part of Bostock that indicates that the outcomes would have been different under a motivating factor standard. the case ruled that the plaintiffs suffered discrimination on the basis of sex and clarified the meaning of "sex" in a discrimination context.

(the court has said some confounding things about the but for standard since and in Bostock, but that's not relevant to this question, at all.)

ok also it's wrong to say "nothing" in Bostock spoke to the but-for standard bc that was part of the ruling. i meant that nothing regarding the definition of "sex" hinged on that standard.

—whispers into the ether— Affirm the ERA…

District of North Texas is overworked trying to run the country by judicial fiat, we're throwing a case Mississippi's way.

Also... Title VII does not have a but-for standard (doesn't matter, as you say, but)

Title VII retaliation is a but for standard, but discrimination is not

Yep. Judge seems to think there is some third super causation standard applicable to Title IX that is stricter than but-for

Post