Organizational Standing and the Battle for Constitutional Accountability
When governments fail to act, civil society often steps up to fill the void - The People Vs The Government. The lawsuit filed by the Great Education Initiative (GEI) against the Biden Administration’s redefinition of Title IX offers more than just a challenge to a government overreach—it raises important questions about the role of organizations in defending the rights of individuals when political leaders refuse to do so. This case is a perfect example of how organizational standing can become a crucial tool for preserving the rule of law and protecting constitutional rights.
At the heart of this issue lies a fundamental truth about our political system: institutions that were designed to protect individual liberties sometimes fail to do so when political or ideological considerations take precedence over principle. In Michigan, the state attorney general has chosen not to challenge the Biden Administration’s radical redefinition of sex under Title IX—a move that undermines both biological reality and the safety and privacy of students in public schools. But where the state has failed, the Great Education Initiative has stepped in, demonstrating the power of civil society in holding the government accountable.
A Necessary Check on Government Inaction
The importance of organizational standing cannot be overstated, particularly when those in power refuse to act. By allowing nonprofit organizations to file lawsuits on behalf of their members, the courts provide a mechanism to check government overreach and hold officials accountable. GEI’s lawsuit against the Department of Education is an excellent example of this, highlighting how organizations can serve as a bulwark against an overzealous federal bureaucracy when elected officials refuse to challenge it.
In this case, GEI is fighting back against a redefinition of Title IX that compels schools to treat gender identity as equivalent to biological sex. This policy not only disregards the privacy and safety of students, especially young girls, but also forces teachers, students, and parents to conform to ideologically driven speech codes, under the threat of punishment. The lawsuit filed by GEI seeks to protect these individuals from being coerced into violating their beliefs.
Yet, the implications of this case go beyond the specifics of Title IX. What we are witnessing is a broader struggle for the preservation of constitutional accountability in a time when political leaders are more concerned with ideology than with the protection of rights. When state actors like the Michigan attorney general refuse to act, organizational standing becomes the last line of defense for those who believe in the rule of law.
Civil Society and the Rule of Law
Some might ask why a nonprofit organization should have the power to challenge government actions in the first place. After all, shouldn't this be the role of elected officials? The reality, however, is that civil society—through organizations like GEI—often plays a vital role in holding government accountable when the political system fails. Elected officials are beholden to their base, and when ideology trumps principle, the rights of individuals are often sacrificed for political gain.
This is where organizational standing becomes so crucial. It allows groups to take up the mantle of defending individual rights when politicians refuse to do so. By permitting organizations to sue on behalf of their members, the courts ensure that the voices of those who are marginalized by political expediency are still heard. In this case, the GEI lawsuit is about protecting the First Amendment rights of students, teachers, and parents who should not be compelled to speak in ways that violate their beliefs. It is also about safeguarding the privacy and safety of young girls who should not be forced to share bathrooms and locker rooms with biological boys.
The Danger of Government Overreach
At its core, this lawsuit is about more than just bathrooms or pronouns. It is about the balance of power between government and the governed. By redefining Title IX to include gender identity, the Biden Administration has overstepped its authority, circumventing Congress to impose a new and radical interpretation of sex discrimination law. Such actions pose a direct threat to the separation of powers that is fundamental to our constitutional system.
GEI’s lawsuit challenges this overreach by arguing that the Department of Education has no legal authority to unilaterally redefine the meaning of sex under federal law. This is a fight not just for the protection of privacy and safety, but for the preservation of constitutional limits on executive power. When government agencies are allowed to create new legal obligations without the approval of Congress, it undermines the very foundation of our republic.
Implications for Future Cases
If GEI’s lawsuit is successful, it could set a powerful precedent for other organizations to challenge government overreach when elected officials refuse to act. This is particularly important in politically contentious areas like education, gender identity, and religious liberty, where governments often side with the most vocal or politically powerful groups at the expense of others.
Organizational standing empowers groups to step into the breach and defend the rights of individuals when the political process breaks down. It offers a legal pathway for civil society to hold government actors accountable when they overstep their bounds. In a political environment where ideological divisions run deep, this may be one of the most important tools we have for protecting constitutional rights.
But it also raises questions about the future role of the judiciary in American life. The more that civil society organizations are forced to resort to the courts to defend rights that should be protected by our elected officials, the more we risk turning the judiciary into a political battleground. Judges are supposed to interpret the law, not create policy. Yet, in cases like this, the courts are being asked to step in precisely because the political branches of government have failed to do their job.
Conclusion - People Vs Government
The lawsuit filed by the Great Education Initiative is not just about Michigan, nor is it just about Title IX. It is about the broader role that civil society must play in defending the rights of individuals when government actors refuse to act. By taking on this legal battle, GEI is standing up for the constitutional principles that are supposed to protect us all—principles like the First Amendment, the separation of powers, and the rule of law.
If we allow the government to redefine fundamental terms like "sex" without any input from Congress, and if we permit schools to punish individuals for holding to biological and religious realities, then we are no longer living in a society governed by law. We are living in a society governed by bureaucrats and ideologues.
That is why this case matters—not just for Michigan, but for the country as a whole. It is a reminder that when our elected officials fail us, civil society must step in to preserve the rights and freedoms that are the foundation of our republic. Organizational standing may be the last line of defense in this ongoing battle for constitutional accountability.
Comments