Hunter Baker, Provost, Dean of Faculty, Professor of Political Science, North Greenville University; Senior Fellow, Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy.

Mark David Hall, Professor, Robertson School of Government, Regent University; Senior Fellow, Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy.

Gerald R. McDermott, Distinguished Professor of Anglican Studies, The Reformed Episcopal Seminary; Senior Fellow, Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy.

Catherine R. Pakaluk, Director of Social Research and Associate Professor, The Catholic University of America; Senior Fellow, Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy.

James Patterson, Associate Professor of Politics, Ave Maria University; Research Fellow, Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy.

Entry of Appearance and Certificate of Interested Parties Kansas, et al.

In accordance with 10th Cir. R. 46.1, the undersigned attorney(s) hereby appear as counsel for Restoring Liberty Action Committee, amicus curiae, in the subject case(s).

Specifically, counsel should not include in the certificate any attorney or party identified immediately above.

Mailing Address and Telephone Number E-Mail Address miller@kansaslaw.us E-Mail Address _________________________________ I hereby certify that a copy of this Entry of Appearance and Certificate of Interested Parties was served on all parties on via the Court’s Electronic Case Filing/Case Management System.

In addition, attorneys not entering an appearance in this court but who have appeared for any party in prior trial or administrative proceedings, or in related proceedings, are noted below.

Case No. 24-3097 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE (10th Cir. R. 46.1(A) In accordance with Tenth Circuit Rule 46.1, the undersigned attorney(s) hereby appear(s) as counsel for: Independent Council on Women's Sports and 135 Female Athletes, Parents of Female Athletes, [Party or Parties] I Coaches and Sports Officials Amici Curiae [Appellant/Petitioner or Appellee/Respondent] in the above-captioned case(s).

Appellate Case: 24-3097 Document: 246 Date Filed: 10/16/2024 Page: 2 Appellate Case: 24-3097 Document: 272 Date Filed: 10/17/2024 Page: 2 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES (10th Cir. R. 46.1(D)) Pursuant to Tenth Circuit Rule 46.1(D), the undersigned certifies2 as follows: A The following (attach additional pages if necessary) individuals and/or entities are not direct parties in this appeal but do have an interest in or relationship to the litigation and/or the outcome of the litigation.

October 16,2024 Date Signature 2 Pursuant to Tenth Circuit Rule 46.1(D)(6), this certificate must be promptly updated if the required information changes.

Appellate Case: 24-3097 Document: 246 Date Filed: 10/16/2024 Page: 3 Appellate Case: 24-3097 Document: 272 Date Filed: 10/17/2024 Page: 3

I hereby certiff that: All other parties to this litigation are either: (1) represented by attorneys; or (2) have consented to electronic service in this case; or On I sent a copy of this Entry of Appearance [date] Form to: at the last known address/email address, by [state method of service] October 16,2024 Date Signature

Entry of Appearance and Certificate of Interested Parties Kansas, et al.

In accordance with 10th Cir. R. 46.1, the undersigned attorney(s) hereby appear as counsel for America's Future, Public Advocate of the United States, U.S.

Constitutional Rights Legal Defense Fund, Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation, LONANG Institute, Restoring Liberty Action Committee, and Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, amici curiae, in the subject case(s).

Specifically, counsel should not include in the certificate any attorney or party identified immediately above.

In addition, attorneys not entering an appearance in this court but who have appeared for any party in prior trial or administrative proceedings, or in related proceedings, are noted below.

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE (10th Cir. R. 46.1(A)) In accordance with Tenth Circuit Rule 46.1, the undersigned attorney(s) hereby appear(s) as counsel for: Professor Gerard V. Bradley

E-Mail Address 1 Counsel must list each party represented.

Appellate Case: 24-3097 Document: 213 Date Filed: 10/16/2024 Page: 2 Appellate Case: 24-3097 Document: 228 Date Filed: 10/16/2024 Page: 2 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES (10th Cir. R. 46.1(D)) Pursuant to Tenth Circuit Rule 46.1(D), the undersigned certifies2 as follows: The following (attach additional pages if necessary) individuals and/or entities are not direct parties in this appeal but do have an interest in or relationship to the litigation and/or the outcome of the litigation.

Signature 2 Pursuant to Tenth Circuit Rule 46.1(D)(6), this certificate must be promptly updated if the required information changes.

Appellate Case: 24-3097 Document: 213 Date Filed: 10/16/2024 Page: 3 Appellate Case: 24-3097 Document: 228 Date Filed: 10/16/2024 Page: 3

In other words, a male employee who identifies as female nonetheless remains a biological male.

Specifically, the new rule mandates access to sex-segregated facilities based on gender identity, undermining established protections for bodily privacy and creating risks for students, especially in sensitive areas like locker rooms and bathrooms.

The Title IX statute provides, “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.” 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a).

And it is why even Justice Ginsburg wrote that “[s]eparate places to disrobe, sleep, perform personal bodily functions are permitted, in some situations required, by regard for individual privacy.” Ruth Bader Ginsburg, The Fear of the Equal Rights Amendment, Washington Post (April 7, 1975).7 As one scholar put it, “sex-separation in bathrooms dates back to ancient times, and, in the United States, preceded the nation’s founding,” and the “key purpose ... was to protect women and girls from sexual harassment and sexual assault in the workplace and other venues.” W. Burlette Carter, Sexism in the “Bathroom Debates”: How Bathrooms Really Became Separated by Sex, 37 Yale L. & Pol’y Rev.

Amicus Jane Doe is deeply concerned that the new Title IX rule would subject girls to invasion of their privacy and fear of unwelcome sexual conduct every time they use the locker room or bathroom.

This change, coupled with the Department’s vague and overly broad definition of “sex,” will open the floodgates to a surge of complaints, making it more challenging for schools to fairly and effectively address legitimate cases of harassment without wrongfully penalizing others.

Dear Counsel: The amicus brief is deficient because: The attachment/Exhibit to the brief is not identified and included in the Table of Contents.

Do not file paper copies of your brief until the court has received your corrected brief and has issued notice it is compliant.

The corrected brief must have an updated certificate of service (if required; see 10th Cir.

Appellate Case: 24-3097 Document: 222 Date Filed: 10/16/2024 Page: 2 Please contact this office if you have questions.

Braden Boucek John J. Bursch James A. Campbell John Allen Eidsmoe Erin B Gaide Kimberly S Hermann Abhishek Kambli Stephanie Robin Marcus William E. Milks Steven A. Myers Melissa N. Patterson David Peters Anthony John Powell Stanford E. Purser Ryan T. Schelhaas Jonathan Andrew Scruggs Jack Starcher William Edward Trachman Jacob P Warner