COSTS: None

BEFORE: BOGGS, WHITE, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.

The court received a petition for rehearing en banc.

The original panel has reviewed the petition for rehearing and concludes that the issues raised in the petition were fully considered upon the original submission and decision of the case.

The petition then was circulated to the full court.

No judge has requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en banc.

Lawrence S. Ebner, ATLANTIC LEGAL FOUNDATION, Washington, D.C., Deborah J. Dewart, Hubert, North Carolina, Eugene Volokh, UCLA SCHOOL OF LAW, Los Angeles, California, Sarah Harbison, PELICAN INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY, New Orleans, Louisiana, Nicole Saad Bembridge, NETCHOICE, Washington, D.C., Thomas A. Berry, CATO INSTITUTE, Washington, D.C., Talmadge Butts, FOUNDATION FOR MORAL LAW, Montgomery, Alabama, B. Tyler Brooks, LAW OFFICE OF B. TYLER BROOKS, PLLC, Greensboro, North Carolina, Thomas Brejcha, THOMAS MORE SOCIETY, Chicago, Illinois, Alan Gura,

Twitter1 is a ubiquitous social-media platform that allows users to electronically communicate by posting and engaging with limited-length messages called “tweets.” This marketplace of ideas has historically avoided censorship, but shortly after the COVID-19 pandemic began, Twitter announced that it was broadening its definition of censorable, harmful information to include “content that goes directly against guidance from authoritative sources of global and local public health information” (COVID-19 policy).

Mark Changizi, Michael Senger, and Daniel Kotzin (collectively, Plaintiffs) are Twitter users who, by March 2020, began to use their accounts to question responses to the COVID-19

The next day, July 16, 2021, the Press Secretary clarified that the Biden administration was “in regular touch with social media platforms ... about areas where we have concern [and] information that might be useful.” Id. at PageID 11.

As the party invoking federal jurisdiction, Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing the “irreducible constitutional minimum” of standing: (1) they suffered an injury in fact, (2) caused by HHS, (3) that a judicial decision could redress.

While the full Senate did not vote on the ERA, the Senate resolution was nonetheless quite significant because it added a seven-year deadline for ratification by the states.

None of these forms of relief implicate the separation of powers concerns discussed above or raise any other complications distinct from our consideration of the Archivist’s duties.

As we will explain, none meet the high threshold of being clearly and indisputably correct.

Ms. Courtney E. Albini Mr. John J. Bursch Mr. Steven James Griffin Mr. Clark Lassiter Hildabrand Mr. Charles W Scarborough Mr. Jack Starcher

Re: Case No. 22-5807, State of Tennessee, et al v. Department of Education, et al Originating Case No. : 3:21-cv-00308 Dear Counsel, The Court issued the enclosed Order today in this case.

All agree that “pronouns matter,” Panel-Maj.13, and none deny that Olentangy’s policies restrict speech that’s protected by the First Amendment, Red-Br.9-10; PI-Or- der, R.28, PageID#839-40; Panel-Maj.12-13.

Ms. Courtney E. Albini Ms. Jessica M. Alloway Mr. Alexander Barrett Bowdre Mr. Nicholas J. Bronni Mr. John J. Bursch Mr. James A. Campbell Mr. Christian Brian Corrigan Mr. Thomas Molnar Fisher Mr. Benjamin Michael Flowers Mr. Steven James Griffin Mr. Christopher Healy Mr. Clark Lassiter Hildabrand Mr. Marc Edwin Manley Mr. Justin Lee Matheny Ms. Cori Marie Mills Ms. Elizabeth B. Murrill Mr. Dean John Sauer Ms. Kate Blakeley Sawyer Mr. Charles W Scarborough Mr. Jonathan Andrew Scruggs Ms. Lindsay Sara See Mr. Brandon James Smith Mr. James Emory Smith Jr. Mr. Joseph Scott St. John Mr. Jack Starcher Mr. Paul Swedlund Mr. Drew Waldbeser Mr. Zachary Paul West Mr. Kurtis Kenneth Wiard Mr. W. Scott Zanzig

 Title identifying the party: e.g., "Brief of Appellee Lawrence Litigant"  Name, address, and telephone number of counsel.

Each citation must include:  Short description of record item: Motion for Summary Judgment; Order; Transcript.

The Page ID # is in blue on the header or footer of the PDF document when it is opened from the district court's docket.

In petitions for review of agency decisions, cite to the page number of the administrative record or the appendix.

Plaintiffs nonetheless insist that discriminating against someone simply for being transgender is not sex discrimination and that § 106.10 is therefore invalid.

7 Appellate Case: 24-3097 Document: 302 Date Filed: 10/29/2024 Page: 14 Plaintiffs nonetheless assert that Title IX differs from Title VII because the former only “prohibit[s] one sex from being treated worse than the other sex.” ...

Section 106.2’s hostile-environment standard has none of those features.

The government’s effort springs from two counterintuitive, unscientific, and legally flawed premises: (1) that a man can be transformed into a woman for all relevant purposes simply by choosing to identify as the opposite gender, and (2) that biological sex is irrelevant to the application of Title IX.

In terms of aerobic endurance capacity, 6–7-year-old males were shown to have higher absolute and relative (to body mass) maximum oxygen uptake than 6–7-year-old females.14 Numerous similar peer reviewed studies were cited in expert reports of Dr. Tommy Lundberg of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and of Dr. Emma Hilton of the University of Manchester, UK, at the injunction phase in the A.M. case.15

Research has established the existence of higher levels of androgens in infant boys during the first six months of their development.19 For instance, “[t]esticular testosterone concentrations were [found to be] maximal in boys 1-3 months of age, with peak values similar to those in pubertal or even adult testes.”20 At the same time, it was found that the adrenal glands were important “as a source of androstene- dione [another anabolic agent similar to testosterone] in male infancy.”21 “Testosterone and dihydrotestosterone [another steroid] levels in [umbilical] cord blood are higher in males than in females.

The menstrual cycle is known to affect cardiovascular, respiratory, brain function, response to ergogenic aids, orthopedics, and metabolic parameters, and represents a barrier to athletic capacity not experienced by males.”31 In short, male-female differences impacting sport performance are so extensive they cannot be fully described in a brief.

Enormous Performance Advantage Enjoyed by a Mediocre Male When Competing Against Elite Female Athletes In the 500-yard freestyle final Thomas beat University of Virginia swimmer Emma Weyant by more than a body length.