In a significant legal development, Arizona State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne has lauded a federal judge's decision to invalidate proposed adjustments to Title IX by the Biden administration. Emphasizing the ruling's alignment with practicality and respect for girls and women in school sports, Horne sees the culmination of this legal chapter as an affirmation of traditional views on gender and privacy in education. As reported by the Arizona Department of Education, this ruling arrives in the wake of Horne's advisement last summer, recommending schools seek legal counsel before implementing the proposed regulations.

Horne's skepticism stemmed from a Louisiana federal court's assessment that the proposed changes would not only necessitate the accommodation of students in lavatories and locker rooms based on their gender identity but also the obligatory use of their chosen pronouns. The fiscal burden resulting from imposed additional requirements was also among the concerns raised. Horne reiterated, “In the past I’ve been asked by districts, as a policy matter, about their consideration of rules, permitting biological boys who have male genitalia being allowed in girls’ bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers. My response was that there should be unisex bathrooms available, and if there was no room for them, the faculty bathroom should be used for that purpose. That would preserve the dignity of biological boys who identify as girls. But if they were allowed in girls’ facilities, I thought parents might well remove the girls from the school and send them to another district, charter school, or private school. So, this rule could have significantly injured public education and today’s judicial decision is a victory for common sense and free speech,” as noted by Arizona Department of Education. 

Furthermore, Horne expressed concerns about potential repercussions on public education if the invalidated provisions had been upheld. Envisioning a scenario where parents might choose to withdraw their daughters from public schools in preference for alternative institutions, he argued that the federal ruling serves as a triumph for common sense and free speech. The crux of the judgment outlined concerns that mandated pronoun use could infringe upon free speech rights, highlighting the complex interplay between individual freedoms and policy.