Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is taking legal action against the Biden administration over various concerns, including transgender policies and the presence of lizards in west Texas.
Over the past two weeks, his office has been actively promoting Texas’ continuous commitment to challenging the Biden administration’s policies, which they perceive as being weaponized.
Earlier this month, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton informed the Biden administration about Texas filing a lawsuit to prevent the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard from being listed as an endangered species. Paxton argued that the decision was based on “flawed assumptions about oil and gas development and unfounded speculation about climate concerns.” This move by Texas represents a reversal of previous efforts made by businesses and ranchers in the state who have invested significant resources over many years to preserve the lizard’s habitat in the oil-rich Permian Basin in west Texas. The Center Square reported on this development.
Critics claim that the designation was solely a political maneuver made in an election year to please environmentalists and “put an end to American oil and gas,” despite the industry’s claims of having concrete evidence of its effective conservation initiatives.
According to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, the Biden Administration has consistently made efforts to use federal authority to undermine the state’s oil and gas sectors. Paxton emphasized that his office is fully prepared to respond by taking action to safeguard the Texas economy, protect private property rights, and uphold the state’s conservation efforts aimed at preserving the environment.
In a recent development, Texas secured a victory as a federal judge ruled in favor of the state’s lawsuit against a Title IX rule change proposed by the Biden administration. This rule sought to redefine an anti-discrimination provision by substituting biological sex with sexual orientation or gender identity. According to Paxton, the Attorney General of Texas, this change would have compelled schools to accommodate biological men in women’s sports teams and facilities, and mandated the use of incorrect pronouns by students and teachers.
In another legal battle, Paxton took the administration to court over a recent rule implemented by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. According to Paxton, this rule would have a detrimental impact on rural nursing homes, potentially leading to their closure. Paxton argued that the rule would require these facilities in Texas to hire over 10,000 personnel with highly specific qualifications, a number that exceeds the current labor market availability in the state and specific service areas. He further emphasized that the already challenging circumstances faced by rural locations could result in the shutdown of these facilities, as the shortage of qualified personnel in the industry disproportionately affects certain regions.
According to the lawsuit, the rule is considered arbitrary and capricious, and it is believed to be in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and Major Questions Doctrine.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton expressed concern over the potential consequences of the actions taken by Biden’s health bureaucrats. According to Paxton, these measures could have a detrimental impact on much-needed care facilities in underserved areas of the state. He warned that the new hiring quotas proposed by the administration could exacerbate the existing shortage of rural care providers and potentially lead to the closure of these facilities.
The lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court Northern District of Texas Amarillo Division, which is the same court where Paxton filed a lawsuit three years ago to prevent similar EEOC guidance.
In 2021, the court made a ruling stating that the EEOC did not have the authority to reinterpret the law and issue mandates based on their flawed interpretation. Additionally, the court deemed the guidance to be unlawful since Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not mandate employers to provide accommodations based on perceived gender identities. The court’s ruling was not appealed by the EEOC or the U.S. Attorney General’s Office.
