In a landmark legal victory, America First Legal (AFL) won a critical Fifth Circuit ruling against federal transgender mandates issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
The EEOC had instituted a federal mandate compelling employers, including religious organizations, to permit employees to use restrooms that correspond to their gender identity, regardless of their biological sex or whether they have undergone sex-change surgery. This mandate, AFL’s client argued, violated their rights.
The Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of AFL’s clients.
BREAKING: America First Legal has won a major Fifth Circuit ruling against federal transgender edicts. The EEOC issued a federal mandate compelling employers to allow men to use the women’s facilities. Our client claimed this violated his rights — and the Fifth Circuit agreed.
— Stephen Miller (@StephenM) June 21, 2023
The court’s decision stated, “On the merits, we decide that [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act] requires that Braidwood, on an individual level, be exempted from Title VII because compliance with Title VII post-Bostock would substantially burden its ability to operate per its religious beliefs about homosexual and transgender conduct. Moreover, the EEOC wholly fails to carry its burden to show that it has a compelling interest in refusing Braidwood an exemption, even post-Bostock.”
Statement from Gene Hamilton, America First Legal Vice President and General Counsel:
“The Biden Administration wrongly tried to keep our clients out of court, arguing that they had to wait for the EEOC to subject them to costly administrative litigation and an intrusive process before their claims against the EEOC’s radical transgender guidance could be heard. While we are thrilled that the Fifth Circuit agreed with our position and further affirmed their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, we will continue to fight for the rights of Americans everywhere to be free from radical administrative transgender edicts.”
The case is Braidwood Management Inc. v. EEOC, No. 22-10145 (5th Cir.). Read the decision here.