Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has launched a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Secretary Xavier Becerra, among others, in an effort to block a federal rule which, according to Paxton, coerces the state's foster care system to conform to ideologies surrounding "sexual orientation" and "gender identity." Filed this week, the suit comes as a response to a policy that would require state agencies overseeing foster care to affirm a child's "LGBTQI+" identity or risk losing federal funding, as mentioned by the Texas Attorney General's office.
The challenge targets a mandate that Texas asserts has been imposed without lawful authority, as neither Title IV-E nor IV-B, which pertain to child welfare services, mention requirements for "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" accommodations. Mistakenly coding this directive as a statutory obligation, HHS has placed Texas on the brink of a funding shortfall. In a statement obtained by the Texas Attorney General's office, Paxton argues that "The Biden Administration is attempting to hold the Texas foster care system hostage to force unscientific, fringe beliefs about gender upon the entire country."
The legal stance contends that the rule in question fails to adhere to the Administrative Procedure Act, owing to its arbitrary and capricious nature. It further alleges a constitutional breach, suggesting the Spending Clause has been violated, given that states like Texas received no clear warning that federal funds for foster care programs could be withheld to enforce compliance with what Paxton describes as experimental gender theory.
Expressing his concern, Paxton insists that the foster care system is being used as a pawn in a political game, risking the well-being of children in need of stable and affectionate homes by forcing these foster care providers to support "gender identity" ideology. Taking aim at these policies, Paxton alleges they threaten to exacerbate an already critical shortage of foster care providers by compelling states to find providers in line with these ideological positions. The trajectory of this litigation points toward a fraught battle over the influence of federal mandates on state-run services and the interpretation of civil rights in the context of child welfare.
