A personal update from Dan …
North Carolina is a big state. And a statewide campaign is a big undertaking. Since I declared for North Carolina Attorney General a year ago, I’ve stayed busy growing our campaign and serving my final months in Congress. As I write, we are 80 days from Election Day (November 5), and just 20 days from absentee ballot mailing (September 6), which begins roughly two months of voting.
Down the stretch, our campaign will communicate our message of restoring impartial and robust law and order in numerous ways, including by deploying the resources you have contributed, and that we have carefully stewarded, to reach millions of North Carolinians through broadcast media, direct mail, print and digital. But especially for supporters and friends, from here on out, I also will personally send more extended thoughts every few days.
Some of these updates will expand on our principal campaign messages with context and background. Some will comment on breaking news of relevance to our race and explore ways the Attorney General can make life better for North Carolinians. Others will keep you abreast of campaign developments as we accelerate toward victory in November.
Today, I’ll elaborate on my X posts about Friday evening’s news from the Supreme Court. The Court let stand lower court injunctions against the Biden Administration’s radical new Title IX regulation. The reg attempts to transform Title IX — the 1972 law establishing equal opportunities for girls and women in education — into the opposite of that original purpose, by stifling free speech criticizing or opting out of trans ideology — pronouns and the whole bit — and requiring almost every school and college in the country to allow biological males into girls’ locker rooms and showers. When the rule took effect in July, attorneys general of more than two dozen states filed legal challenges and won preliminary injunctions. Not North Carolina.
The Supreme Court’s action Friday evening was generally reported as breaking 5-4, but in fact the justices disagreed only whether injunctions should have extended to provisions of the regulation other than the “gender identity” and “sexual orientation” mandates. They all agreed that Title IX’s protection of women’s opportunities doesn’t confer authority to mandate transgender ideology. As stated in the Supreme Court order, “Importantly, all Members of the Court today accept that the plaintiffs were entitled to preliminary injunctive relief as to three provisions of the rule, including the central provision that newly defines sex discrimination to include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.”