Supreme Court Rejects Christian Challenge

United States Supreme Court

( – Angering millions of social conservatives, the United States Supreme Court has refused to take up a case in which a Christian college had challenged a US government directive on housing transgender individuals issued by the Biden administration.

The lawsuit was initiated by the College of the Ozarks, a Christian institution based in Missouri, The Washington Times reports.

It disputed a policy launched by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (DHUD) in 2021.

Under President Joe Biden’s House Department’s directive, any housing decisions that happen to discriminate on the basis of “gender identity” are unlawful.

The DHUD cited as a foundation for its decree a 2020 ruling of the US Supreme Court, which proclaimed that sex discrimination also applied to LGBT people in the workplace.

According to the College of Ozarks, the DHUD directive ran counter to federal law since the Biden administration failed to follow the proper rule-making process.

The Christian institution also argued the rule on “transgender” housing infringed upon First Amendment and religious rights.

Lower courts have ruled against the school, arguing that the DHUD policy did not state explicitly that it would apply to religious institutions. Therefore, the college had not suffered any legal injury justifying its lawsuit.

The petition, with which the College of the Ozarks addressed the case to the US Supreme Court, stated that the school teaches “gender” based on biology, not identity. Thus, the federal directive infringed on its education and policy.

“The College’s code of conduct specifies that residence halls are single sex and assigned by biological sex, not gender identity,” the Christian school argued.

“The government’s rule change now deems the College’s housing policies to be discriminatory and its speech unlawful,” it added.

Before the US Supreme Court, the Biden administration’s lawyers argued that the federal guidance didn’t speak to a religious exemption.

“Petitioner’s claim of injury stemming from the memorandum’s issuance is ‘speculative,’ ‘conjectural’ and ‘hypothetical,’” the US Justice Department wrote in its brief to the high court.

The Supreme Court rejected the college’s motion to hear its appeal without comment. Four votes out of the nine justices were required for it to take up the case.