(The Center Square) – The U.S. Department of Education said Wednesday that both the California Department of Education and the California Interscholastic Federation are in violation of Title IX for allowing males into female spaces and sports.

“Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 requires schools to ensure equal opportunities for girls, including in athletic activities, but California has actively prevented this equality of opportunity by allowing males in girls’ sports and intimate spaces,” a U.S. Department of Education news release said.

Neither the California Department of Education (CDE) nor the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) responded to The Center Square’s request for comment.

The U.S. Department of Education’s findings follow investigations into both CDE and CIF, according to the department’s release.

“As a result of the noncompliance finding, [the Office of Civil Rights] has issued a proposed Resolution Agreement to CDE and CIF to resolve their Title IX violations,” the release said.

The Resolution Agreement requires a number of actions, including that “the CDE will issue a Notice to all recipients of federal funding (Recipients) that operate interscholastic athletic programs in California requiring them to comply with Title IX.”

Such federal funding recipients “must adopt biology-based definitions of the words ‘male’ and ‘female,’” the release said.

Additionally, the resolution states that, “the CDE and CIF will rescind any guidance that advised local school districts or CIF members to permit male athletes to participate in women’s and girls’ sports to reflect that Title IX preempts state law when state law conflicts with Title IX.”

“Individual records, titles, and awards misappropriated by male athletes competing in female competitions” must be restored to the female athletes who are the rightful winners. CDE must also send an apology letter to each of these girls whose recognition is restored, the release said.

If CDE and CIF do not change their unlawful practices in regards to Title IX as outlined in the Resolution within 10 days, they will both “risk imminent enforcement action, including referral to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for proceedings,” the release said.

U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in the release: “Although Governor Gavin Newsom admitted months ago it was ‘deeply unfair’ to allow men to compete in women’s sports, both the California Department of Education and the California Interscholastic Federation continued as recently as a few weeks ago to allow men to steal female athletes’ well-deserved accolades and to subject them to the indignity of unfair and unsafe competitions.”

“The Trump Administration will relentlessly enforce Title IX protections for women and girls, and our findings today make clear that California has failed to adhere to its obligations under federal law,” McMahon said.

“The state must swiftly come into compliance with Title IX or face the consequences that follow,” McMahon said.

The Department of Education has not yet responded to The Center Square’s request for comment.

The finding of this Title IX violation also falls into line with the department announcement that June is “Title IX Month,” as reported by The Center Square.

(The Center Square) – Several of the reasons Gov. Greg Abbott made for vetoing a statewide THC ban, SB 3, were rejected Tuesday by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Texas legislature overwhelmingly passed SB 3 with bipartisan support during the regular legislative session. Late Sunday night, Abbott vetoed it.

In his proclamation explaining the veto, he said SB 3 was “well-intentioned. But it would never go into effect because of valid constitutional challenges.” If it were enacted, “its enforcement would be enjoined for years, leaving existing abuses unaddressed,” he said, adding that “Texas cannot afford to wait.”

He pointed to Arkansas enacting a THC ban in 2023, Act 629, which was challenged in court. A lower court halted it from going into effect, arguing it would “likely [be] preempted by federal statutes and that its criminal provisions were likely unconstitutionally vague,” Abbott said. “The result in Arkansas? Their law has sat dormant, meaningless, having no effect for nearly two years while further legal proceedings play out. That result must be avoided in Texas,” Abbott said. Instead, he proposed regulating THC similar to how alcohol is regulated.

On Monday, Patrick challenged each of Abbott’s arguments, saying they were flawed and factually inaccurate. Federal law expressly permits states to impose their own restrictions, including banning THC, Patrick said. He also said the Fourth and Seventh circuits have ruled as much and California and Colorado banned THC with no problems, The Center Square reported.

He said he believed the 8th Circuit would rule in favor of Arkansas.

One day later, it did.

On Tuesday, a panel of judges on the Eighth Circuit, including the chief judge, reversed the lower court’s injunction.

The judges also confirmed Patrick’s argument, stating in their 16-page ruling that nothing in the 2018 Farm Bill “preempts or limits any law of a State or Indian tribe that … regulates production of hemp and is more stringent than this subchapter.”

They also said the Arkansas Supreme Court would reach the same conclusion they did.

“We predict that the Arkansas Supreme Court would hold that” a provision, the saving’s clause, was upheld in the law, agreeing with the state.

The judges rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the state’s ban prohibited interstate commerce of hemp products, also saying, “We predict the Arkansas Supreme Court would adopt our understanding of the phrase ‘continuous transportation.’ Any more of a restrictive understanding would mean that Act 629 would violate the 2018 Farm Bill’s Express Preemption Clause.”

The judges also point out that the “text of the 2018 Farm Bill shows only that Congress wanted to facilitate state legalization of hemp, if a state wants to. Congress allows states to legalize hemp by removing the biggest hurdle – federal criminalization.”

The text of the 2018 Farm Bill “does not support” the plaintiff’s claim “that Congress intended to ‘federally protect[] hemp’ and coercively mandate nationwide legality,” the judges said. “States may obtain primary regulatory authority over hemp production,” including banning it.

“Instead, just because states may legalize hemp under the 2018 Farm Bill does not mean they must,” the judges note.

The judges also rejected the argument Abbott cited, saying the Arkansas bill “is not unconstitutionally vague and the district court abused its discretion when it issued a preliminary injunction based on the statute being void for vagueness.”

In response to the ruling, Patrick said the court ruled the way he believed it would and the Texas Senate would reintroduce SB 3 and the state legislature would pass it again.

Abbott called a special session for next month, adding SB 3 to the agenda, suggesting that the legislature implement a series of regulations to legalize THC.

The Republican Party of Texas opposes legalizing marijuana; the majority of Republicans in the legislature voted to ban it, not regulate it.

When the legislature convenes next month, Patrick said, “All we have to do is pass SB 3, just like we passed during the regular session.”

(The Center Square) – With one signature by Gov. Ron DeSantis, visitors to Florida will no longer have to worry about potential trespassing charges for walking on the beach.

The governor signed Senate Bill 1622 on Tuesday, which overrides a 2018 law that limited public access to privately-owned beaches and prohibited counties from passage of “customary use” ordinances that allowed beach access.

The measure also streamlines beach restoration efforts. 

“By repealing the law, we return the authority back to local communities,” DeSantis said at a signing ceremony in Santa Rosa Beach. “Cities and counties can now adopt ordinances recognizing recreational customary use, walking, fishing, sunbathing, swimming, without having to obtain a judicial declaration. This bill is about restoring local control, cutting legal red tape and putting our residents first, but it goes even further to strengthen our coastal communities.”

The 2018 law came about after property owners sued Walton County and its commission over its “customary use” ordinance passed in 2016 that said “the public’s long-standing customary use of the dry sand areas of all of the beaches in the county for recreational purposes is hereby protected.”

This sand area extended from the toe of sand dunes to the high-water line. 

The law required cities and counties to apply any “customary use” ordinances parcel by parcel, a long and laborious process that invited litigation by landowners. 

It also resulted in a lawsuit by Walton County against property owners over implementation of “customary use” rights in 2018 that was resolved in 2023 after five years of litigation. 

Sen. Jay Trumbull, the bill’s sponsor who represents all or parts of Okaloosa, Walton, Bay, Jackson, Washington and Calhoun counties, said while Walton County has 26 miles of coastline, only seven of that is publicly accessible.

“This bill is much more about much more than policy,” the Panama City Republican said. “It’s about families, it’s about tradition, and it’s about restoring something that never should have been taken away in the first place. Back in 2018 when the state passed a law that blocked local governments from recognizing customary use of beaches, no one felt that impact more severely than Walton County. Overnight, people who had walked the same stretch of dry beach for generations were being told that they were trespassing. This is that’s not the Walton County, I know, and it’s not the Florida I believe in.

“The people here weren’t asked for anything unreasonable. They just wanted to keep doing what they’ve always done, walk the beach, toss a football, build a sand castle with their families, and instead, they got confused, conflict and courtroom battles all to protect a simple, time-honored way of life.”