If you thought President Trump hit the ground running, you should see Jeff Sessions. The new attorney general was probably still unpacking his office when he got to work turning the page at the Justice Department after eight years of scandal. First up? The Obama bathroom mandate for public schools.

Less than 48 hours after his confirmation, Sessions’s DOJ made it clear the agency was under new management by refusing to defend the controversial order to let students of both sexes use any locker room, shower or restroom they want. Since last May, when President Obama shocked the country with his decree, the issue has been working its way through the courts — thanks to a huge pushback from states like Texas. By summer’s end, a federal judge agreed with parents: The Obama administration had overstepped its boundaries. In a huge win for the Constitution and common sense, Reed O'Connor blocked the rule from taking effect, at least temporarily. Frustrated, the Obama attorneys asked the court to lift its ban in every state except the 13 that sued the government over it. O'Connor refused, insisting:

It is clear from Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedent that this Court has the power to issue a nationwide injunction where appropriate. Both Title IX and Title VII rely on the consistent, uniform application of national standards in education and workplace policy. A nationwide injunction is necessary because the alleged violation extends nationwide. Should the Court only limit the injunction to the plaintiff states who are a party to this cause of action, the Court risks a ‘substantial likelihood that a geographically-limited injunction would be ineffective.

Not surprisingly, the Obama administration appealed. But thanks to the Trump team’s quick thinking, the court date originally scheduled for today has been canceled. “The parties are currently considering how best to proceed,” Justice officials wrote. Of course, most Americans hope that “proceeding” includes the formal withdrawal of an edict that’s already had a deleterious effect on girls’ privacy and safety. From Virginia to Oklahoma, the groundswell of opposition exploded. While some districts may have waffled on the rule, parents refused to take the government’s coercion lying down. In Palatine, Illinois, where girls were so afraid to change in the locker room that they wore their gym clothes under their school clothes, the Trump administration’s move is a positive step. No child’s innocence should be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. As even some Democrats will tell you, the federal government has absolutely no right to strip parents and local schools of their rights to provide a safe learning environment for children.

Donald Trump argued before the election that the federal government had no business forcing extreme bathroom and shower policies on schools. “The state should make the decision,” he argued. Hopefully, the new White House will give them that opportunity by overturning Obama’s order — once and for all.

Originally published here.

NFL Tries to Down Privacy Bill by Contact

If NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell thinks “football unites us,” then why is his league taking political sides? Good question, one the NFL is having a tough time answering. With league ratings in the basement after the Colin Kaepernick controversy, you’d think Goodell and company would have learned their lesson about wading into the culture wars. Not so, scream today’s headlines. Instead of distancing itself from the kinds of debates that divide fans, the NFL is digging in its cleats on a losing issue: gender-free bathrooms.

Days after hosting a hugely successful Houston Super Bowl — both from a PR and revenue standpoint — the league is starting the off-season with empty threats over the Texas Privacy Act. “If a proposal that is discriminatory or inconsistent with our values were to become law [in Texas], that would certainly be a factor considered when thinking about awarding future events,” warned NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy.

Of course, the irony is that the very city where the championship game was just held — Houston — overwhelmingly rejected the very legislation the NFL says it supports. And did the league pitch a fit then? No. All it did was reaffirm its commitment to “inclusivity,” which the Texas Privacy Act supports. Believe it or not, if Goodell issued a blanket policy that every NFL stadium had to make its bathrooms gender-free, the Lone Star bill would let him! “Despite persistent misinformation in the media, under Senate Bill 6, all Texas teams will be able to set their own policies at the stadiums and arenas where they play and hold their events. There is no conflict with the NFL’s statement today and Senate Bill 6.”

But here’s the league’s dirty little secret. This isn’t about what happens at its own stadiums. If it were, the league would have already relabeled its facilities. This is about the NFL being used by LGBT activists to leverage their power against the people and their elected leaders. And at this point — eight days after a Super Bowl in the very state it’s criticizing — the NFL’s after-the-fact warnings are almost comical.

If Goodell hoped to scare Texas leaders, he’ll have to try harder. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R), who cares more about protecting his citizens than the NFL’s misguided politics, jabbed the league on Twitter, saying “NFL decision makers also benched Tom Brady last season. It ended with NFL handing the Super Bowl trophy to Brady.” Much like ESPN, which saw viewership slump after a few too many liberal rants, the NFL is on precarious ground. “The steady decline in NFL television ratings has been the biggest story of the football season, and arguably the biggest sports-business story of 2016,” Yahoo! Finance wrote. Across every demographic, the league’s defense of Colin Kaepernick led to a protest from which the league might not recover. Surely, the league knows better than to involve the NFL in an equally combustible debate over bathrooms. Or does it?

Originally published here.

Target Sales Into Rough Waters

The NFL doesn’t have to look far to see where this kind of political pigheadedness leads. For the last 10 months, the Target company has taken a beating on Wall Street for racing to embrace the transgender movement. The backlash for opening its fitting rooms and restrooms to anyone has been so severe that executives are scrambling to stop the bleeding. After 1.5 million Americans joined the Target boycott first launched by American Family Association, the company has been racing to make up the deficits — not just in its bank account, but in the public trust.

After Christmas (and a slew of missed projections), executives went back to the drawing board. Two months into the New Year, nothing is working. In fact, the situation is so dire for the retailer that it’s had to call off a major expansion in sales. “Target announced the end of two projects as the stock price hit $64.77 at market close on February 8. That’s down from $83 when the boycott began once the company made its transgender policy change on April 19. The stock price drop has slashed roughly $10 billion from the company’s value on Wall Street.” The closure was so unexpected, Breitbart explains, that it “even caught the project’s manager by surprise.” Although the company tried to pass it off as a “normal ebb and flow of business,” the reality is that it has nothing but its controversial bathroom policy to blame.

And financial experts agree. At Cabot Wealth Network, Crista Huff couldn’t believe the company didn’t know better than to pander to a tiny vocal minority. “I immediately knew that Target’s revenue would drop because its customer base would become disenfranchised. How did Target’s management team not know this?” What’s more, this excuse that all of the retailers going through tough times is exactly that — an excuse. Stock analysts point out that “Target’s same-store sales fell 1.1 percent in the second quarter, while Wal-Mart’s comps rose 1.6 percent… If you take 1.5 million people’s consumer dollars away from Target, and direct most of those dollars toward their obvious rival, Wal-Mart, then yes, Wal-Mart is going to have an upside surprise in quarterly sales while Target’s numbers disappoint.” The takeaway? Well, Huff says, “My recommendation is that shareholders sell [Target] stock and reinvest their capital into the stock of a company with strong earnings growth.” And, we would add, stronger values!

Originally published here.

This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.