Opening Packet – Negative – hss 2017 offcase materials start here

Politics Disad

Note:

This includes only a specific 1NC Shell for the Trans- Bathroom Affirmative. It also includes a few additional cards that are specific to the Trans- bathroom Aff. Students should look to the larger Politics Disad for all remaining backlines.

1NC Shell – Politics

Tax reform will pass despite hurdles – Trump PC key – solves sustainable economic growth

Kudlow 5-20 [Larry Kudlow, CNBC's Senior Contributor, nationally syndicated columnist, formerly chief economist and senior managing director of Bear Stearns & Company, University of Rochester and Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, 5-20-2017 “Don't Bet Against Tax and Health Care Reform in 2017” http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_lawrence_kudlow/don_t_bet_against_tax_and_health_care_reform_in_2017]

If the smart money folks on Wall Street think a special counsel to oversee the Russian probes spells defeat for business tax cuts, they're leaning well over their skis.

The Dow Jones industrial average sold off over 300 points on Wednesday, but it may have come back to its senses with a 140-point gain on Friday. And while there's never 100 percent probability in forecasting political risk, it seems the likelihood of health care reform by the summer and tax reform by year's end (or early 2018) is quite high.

Paradoxically, special counsel Robert Mueller will provide cover for President Trump, as it will take him many months to complete his investigation. The leaks are going to dry up. By law, information on the probe must be protected. So, whatever the outcome, Trump will have months without the attack headlines in which to sell his tax-cut plan.

Meanwhile, amid all the controversies, the GOP Congress knows it could get whacked in next year's midterms if it doesn't govern -- a big incentive.

And Trump still has the backing of his core base, which is at least 40 percent of the electorate. These disenchanted voters may not agree with everything he says. But they still strongly believe Trump is their best chance to drain the swamp -- to overturn the Beltway elites, to deliver border security, to improve trade deals and to cut taxes and regulations to deliver the full-fledged deeply rooted sustainable prosperity we haven't seen in 20 years.

Warts and all, Trump and his polices is still their vote. (He needs to go out there and rally these folks.)

And all this talk of impeachment based on obstruction of justice is just Democratic political pap. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who is no partisan, calls it "an awfully thin soup." Former federal prosecutor and National Review contributor Andrew McCarthy says, "the basis for claiming at this point that President Trump obstructed justice is not there." Acting FBI director Andrew McCabe told Congress there's been no interference in the FBI's investigations and no request for additional funding.

And if Comey did write a memo about obstruction of justice, he is legally obligated to report it to the highest levels of the Justice Department. Failure to do so could invoke criminal charges.

Why did he wait until he was fired to have his leakers put this out?

Yet behind all this mess, House Speaker Paul Ryan keeps telling people that Congress can walk and chew gum at the same time. He's right.

Look, the House has already passed a replacement of Obamacare. And a Senate health care working group led by top Republican leaders, including Sens. Lamar Alexander and Ted Cruz, is making progress resolving key issues between moderates and conservatives. There's no reason why the American Health Care Act can't become law by the August recess.

And that opens the door for taxes.

House Ways and Means Committee chair Kevin Brady just began expert tax hearings. After the recess, Brady will likely convene a markup session.

Rep. Peter Roskam, who chairs the congressional tax policy subcommittee, said last week, "I'm of the view that 2017 is the year." He thinks tax reform is easier than replacing Obamacare.

So, following a markup, Ways and Means can report out a bill. And because prosperity is America's No. 1 issue, it will pass the floor relatively easily. And that will put pressure on the Senate to get moving.

It's likely that a tax cut working group will again convene to hash out important details. The border-adjusted tax, or BAT, will have to go. But the very core of the tax bill is a simple three steps: a deep corporate tax-rate cut, immediate expensing for new equipment of all kinds and the repatriation of offshore cash. This is the tonic that will restore capital formation, productivity, real wages and growth.

Both Senate and House leaders have to understand how flexible reconciliation is. It can be nearly anything you want it to be. The key player is Senate President Mike Pence, who can overrule the parliamentarian.

Congressional leaders should heed the words of Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who has become the administration's leading spokesperson for economic growth and lower tax rates. He told the Senate Banking Committee last week, "What I have said repeatedly is that any plan we put forward we believe should be paid for with economic growth."

He is estimating a 3 percent growth rate by 2021. I suspect it will arrive faster. And the difference between growth of less than 2 percent from the Congressional Budget Office and 3 percent growth is well over $3 trillion in additional revenue. It's the mother of all pay-fors.

And lowering marginal tax rates across the board, especially on large and small businesses, will foster the mother of all prosperities -- the one for which middle-class Americans in all those red counties that voted for Trump have been yearning.

Plan drains PC through GOP, public and religious backlash . Congress will try to intervene – turns prove link because fighting is intense on both sides

Sanchez ‘16

Ray, CNN digital editor/writer/producer, foreign correspondent, author, NYU grad, CNN, 5/16, http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/14/politics/transgender-bathrooms-backlash/index.html

Feds' transgender guidance provokes fierce backlash The Obama administration's directive on the use of school bathrooms by transgender students has provoked a torrent of criticism. It also marks a new front in America's long-running culture wars. The latest battle over transgender rights and sexual identity comes in response to a joint letter Friday from the Departments of Education and Justice directing public schools to ensure that "transgender students enjoy a supportive and nondiscriminatory school environment." Vanita Gupta, head of the Justice Department's civil rights division, addressed the issue Saturday in remarks at the University of Minnesota Law School commencement. "Even after the Supreme Court's landmark gay marriage decision last year in Obergefell v. Hodges that guaranteed all people 'equal dignity in the eyes of the law,' we see new efforts to deny LGBTI individuals the respect they deserve and the protection our laws guarantee," she said. "Efforts like House Bill 2 in North Carolina not only violate the laws that govern our nation, but also the values that define us as a people." A legal standoff between the administration and North Carolina over the state's controversial House Bill 2 is part of a broader public debate on transgender rights in schools and public life. The statewide policy bans individuals from using public bathrooms that do not correspond to their biological sex and restricts cities from passing nondiscrimination laws. The Obama administration directive goes beyond the bathroom issue to touch on privacy rights, education records and sex-segregated athletics. And that has unleashed a fierce backlash from ministers, parents and politicians who say the federal government has gone too far. The joint letter, of course, does not carry the force of law. The threat of a cut in federal funding, however, is abundantly clear. Politicians lead the charge Prominent politicians across the nation are defiantly standing up against the guidance from Washington. Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick accused the Obama administration of "blackmail" and called the directive "social engineering." "Families in America will not accept it," he told reporters. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, on Twitter, promised a fight: "Obama can't rewrite the Civil Rights Act. He's not a king." Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who railed against such laws when he was a Republican presidential candidate, did not hold back. "America has woken up to yet another example of President Barack Obama doing through executive fiat what he cannot get done through our democratic process," Cruz said. He added, "Having spent many years in law enforcement, I've handled far too many cases of child molesters, of pedophiles, of people who abused little kids. The threats of predators are serious, and we should not facilitate allowing grown men or boys to be in bathrooms with little girls." North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory called on Congress to intervene. "Most Americans, including this governor, believe that government is searching for a solution to a problem that has yet to be defined," he said in a statement. "Now, both the federal courts and the U.S. Congress must intercede to stop this massive executive branch overreach, which clearly oversteps constitutional authority." 'It's up to Congress to write the law' Lamar Alexander, the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, reiterated that the guidance was not federal. "This is the kind of issue that parents, schools boards, communities, students and teachers should be allowed to work out in a practical way with a maximum amount of respect for the individual rights of all students," the Tennessee Republican said in a statement. "Insofar as the federal government goes, it's up to Congress to write the law, not the executive departments." Justice and Education Department officials have repeatedly made clear that under their interpretation of Title IX, the federal anti-discrimination law in education, schools receiving federal funds may not discriminate based on a student's sex, including a student's transgender status. "The guidance makes clear that both federal agencies treat a student's gender identity as the student's sex for purposes of enforcing Title IX," the administration said Thursday. "There is no room in our schools for discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against transgender students on the basis of their sex," Attorney General Loretta Lynch said. "This guidance gives administrators, teachers and parents the tools they need to protect transgender students from peer harassment and to identify and address unjust school policies." LGBT groups praised the guidelines as a validation of transgender rights and a repudiation of so-called "bathroom bills" that ban people from using public bathrooms that do not correspond with their biological sex. "This is a truly significant moment not only for transgender young people but for all young people, sending a message that every student deserves to be treated fairly and supported by their teachers and schools," Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin said. But in North Carolina, Republican State Rep. Craig Horn told CNN affiliate WBTV that he received emails from parents worried about the safety of their children. "There certainly could be a safety issue," he told the station. "I am not ringing the bell of fear, but I have to be concerned. Kids are kids. We do crazy things." Horn said topics such as "underserved kids, failing schools, violence in schools, making sure kids get a great education" deserve as much attention from the federal government as the use of bathrooms. 'The conflict has only just begun' Denny Burk, professor of biblical studies at Boyce College, the undergraduate school of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kentucky, wrote in his blog: "This radical directive is a heavy-handed, unconstitutional overreach in order to force Americans to pretend that some boys are girls and some girls are boys. It is absurd and wrong." Burk predicted that the directive would "cause unrest and conflict all over the country. It is one thing for an individual to embrace a fictional identity. It is another thing for the federal government to coerce everyone else to embrace it too. This is far from over. Indeed the conflict has only just begun." Rodney Cavness, superintendent of the Port Neches-Groves public school district in Texas, told CNN affiliate KFDM-TV that he was throwing the Obama administration directive in the trash. "I don't recognize President Obama," he told the station. "Nothing he does has any shred of leadership ... This is one of those deals where it's total overreach of the federal government." A member of the Rowan-Salisbury Board of Education in North Carolina this week suggested the use of school bathrooms by transgender students justified allowing high school students to carry pepper spray to class. "Depending on how the courts rule on the bathroom issues, it may be a pretty valuable tool to have on the female students if they go to the bathroom, not knowing who may come in," board member Chuck Hughes said of the pepper spray, according to the Salisbury Post. The board voted Monday to change a policy prohibiting mace or pepper spray in high school, CNN affiliate WSOC-TV reported. But Hughes told the station and he and other board members -- after weighing the pros and cons -- will vote against the change later this month. "I was not thinking about the LGBT issue," Hughes said. "Perverts and pedophiles taking advantage of this law in bathrooms was my major concern." A threat to federal funding In Fannin County, Georgia, hundreds of parents attended a school board meeting Thursday night to voice concerns about bathroom policy, CNN affiliate WSB-TV reported. Some threatened to remove their children from school. "They will never set foot in a Fannin County school again," one mother said, according to the station. "I will stay home every day and homeschool as long as it takes. But that is my belief, and that is my motherly right, and that is where I stand." Fannin County Schools Superintendent Mark Henson told the station that losing about $3 million in federal funds was not an option. In a letter to U.S. Education Secretary John King this week, North Carolina's ten Republican members of Congress said they were "deeply troubled by the threat" to withhold federal funds and demanded assurances the state would not be punished. King said the directive came in response to requests from schools and parents seeking guidance. It's a clarification of the federal government's position that gender identity is protected under Title IX.

Court Action is uniquely politicized and rulings are tied to Trump – Blocking Garland vote changed the game

Turow, ‘17

Scott, partner of the international law firm Dentons, former US Assistant Attorney, member of the U.S. Senate Nominations Commission, 2/1, http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/02/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court

CAN NEIL GORSUCH DE-POLITICIZE THE SUPREME COURT? Or will he make matters worse? The ultimate consequence of a court viewed as a political instrument is that it will be disrespected, and even disobeyed, by the political majority. The nomination of federal Appellate Court Judge Neil Gorsuch to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court is destined to speed up the already rapid politicization of the court, a process that threatens to rob it of legitimacy and, sooner or later, produce open defiance of its decisions. This has next to nothing to do with the bona fides of Judge Gorsuch, who appears to have the intellectual qualifications—a doctorate from Oxford, no less—and the judicial experience that one, in theory, would want in a Supreme Court justice. The problem, of course, is the way we got here. Even before Barack Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to succeed Justice Scalia last year, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to allow hearings to proceed on any name that the president sent forth. Instead, McConnell said, the nomination should belong to the next president chosen by the American people. There was virtually no precedent for McConnell’s position: Justice Anthony Kennedy was confirmed in the last year of President Reagan’s second term by a Democratic Senate. Worse, by essentially proposing that the choice for a Supreme Court justice would be decided as the result of a plebiscite, McConnell was suggesting that the court should be controlled by the voters. McConnell’s actions were all the more ironic because they concerned the seat of the court’s most committed “originalist,” as those who supposedly interpret the Constitution according to the intent and understandings of its framers are called. In this case, the intent of the framers was pretty clear on a couple of matters. First, Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution says: “The President...shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint...Judges of the [S]upreme Court...” Lawyers, including originalists, love “plain language,” and the plain language here vests the appointment power solely in the president, with the Senate’s role limited to advising and consenting. By withholding any vote in committee or on the Senate floor, McConnell clearly ignored the constitutional command to offer advice or affirmation. Furthermore, by awaiting the next presidential election, McConnell was saying that the voters deserved to decide the direction of the court. Again, this is not what the framers of the constitution wanted. They could have easily provided for the election of judges. They didn’t. The framers envisioned the court as a less political institution on which the justices would serve for life, so that they were not prisoners of the popular will.

Weak growth causes nuclear war---turns every impact

Kemp 10 – Geoffrey Kemp, Director of Regional Strategic Programs at The Nixon Center, served in the White House under Ronald Reagan, special assistant to the president for national security affairs and senior director for Near East and South Asian affairs on the National Security Council Staff, Former Director, Middle East Arms Control Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2010, The East Moves West: India, China, and Asia’s Growing Presence in the Middle East, p. 233-234

The second scenario, called Mayhem and Chaos, is the opposite of the first scenario; everything that can go wrong does go wrong. The world economic situation weakens rather than strengthens, and India, China, and Japan suffer a major reduction in their growth rates, further weakening the global economy. As a result, energy demand falls and the price of fossil fuels plummets, leading to a financial crisis for the energy-producing states, which are forced to cut back dramatically on expansion programs and social welfare. That in turn leads to political unrest: and nurtures different radical groups, including, but not limited to, Islamic extremists. The internal stability of some countries is challenged, and there are more “failed states.” Most serious is the collapse of the democratic government in Pakistan and its takeover by Muslim extremists, who then take possession of a large number of nuclear weapons. The danger of war between India and Pakistan increases significantly. Iran, always worried about an extremist Pakistan, expands and weaponizes its nuclear program. That further enhances nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt joining Israel and Iran as nuclear states. Under these circumstances, the potential for nuclear terrorism increases, and the possibility of a nuclear terrorist attack in either the Western world or in the oil-producing states may lead to a further devastating collapse of the world economic market, with a tsunami-like impact on stability. In this scenario, major disruptions can be expected, with dire consequences for two-thirds of the planet’s population.

Politics Link – Federalism-specific links

Our Actor distinction - Federal Decisions on gender identity and bathrooms are uniquely unpopular.

Heriot ‘16

et al ; Gail L. Heriot is a Professor of Law at the University of San Diego School of Law. Since 2007 she has been a member of the United States Commission on Civil Rights. Gail was also a professor and associate dean at George Mason University School of Law. She is a former civil rights council to the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Amicus Brief - GLOUCESTER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, Petitioner, v. G. G., BY HIS NEXT FRIEND AND MOTHER, DEIRDRE GRIMM, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE GAIL HERIOT AND PETER N. KIRSANOW, MEMBERS OF THE U.S. COMMISSION ON CWIL RIGHTS, IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS PRWATE CITIZENS, IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER – September – Available at SCOUTS blog – along with all amicus briefs on this matter – modified to avoid potentially objectionable language – continues to footnote - http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/16-273-cert-amicus-heriot.pdf

This Case Has Captured the Public's Attention as a Symbol of the Rule of Law's Decline; Vindicating the Rule of Law in this Case Is Thus Vital to the Health of the American System of Laws.

For a variety of reasons, many abuses of the administrative state slip by the public unnoticed. Similarly, legitimate governmental actions are sometimes unfairly called abusive. This case is different: It is correctly viewed (considered) by many as an egregious overreach. When the preliminary injunctions in both this case and its opposite, Texas v. United States, Civil Action No. 7:16-cv-00054-O (N.D. Tex. Aug. 21, 2016), were issued, they made the news across the country.

It is not hard to see why. First, the statutory interpretation issue can be readily grasped. Few would argue that Title IX's sex discrimination ban was originally understood to require OCR's conclusions. Indeed, OCR made no such claim. See supra at Section II. As for Price Waterhouse and Oncale, few have ever heard of them, and if they did hear of them they would be unlikely to believe that such decisions could change a statute's clear meaning.

Second, fairly or unfairly, the underlying social issue tends to provoke a strong response from many members of the public. When Target Corporation announced on April 19, 2016, that it would begin inviting transgendered individuals to use the store restroom that corresponds to their gender identity rather than to their sex (as was clearly Target's legal right), an online petition began to be circulated. As of this writing (September 4th), it has garnered the signatures of 1,417,548 individuals, all of whom have pledged to boycott Target (as was clearly the legal right of the signatories).8 Google reports that Target's stock plummeted over 15.7% between April 19th and September 2nd (market closing as of the time of this writing), while its chief competitor, Wal-Mart, saw its stock increase 3.9%.

Similarly, the issue of toilet, locker room, and shower assignment was thought by some (perhaps correctly in retrospect) to be embedded in a Houston initiative that prohibited gender identity discrimination. As a result, Houston voters (a group that voted heavily for President Obama in 2012) voted it down by a 3 to 1 margin.

Supporters of the Transgender Guidances have argued that male-to-female transgendered persons are no threat to the safety of females.9 Opponents have argued that OCR's (and Target's) policy requires no proof that one psychologically identifies with the opposite sex. The effect is that ill-motivated individuals can use the intimate facility of their choice without fear of being turned away. In some instances, this has led to tragic results. See, e.g., Sam Pazzano, Predator Who Claimed to be Transgender Declared Dangerous Offender, Toronto Sun, Feb. 26, 2014.

Even if one regards these cases to be too rare to be significant in setting public policy, they will be discussed in lurid detail on the radio, television, newspapers, magazines, and blogs and circulated over Face-book and Twitter.

Polls indicate that strong majorities of Americans oppose OCR's policies.FN10 Of course, polls should not drive this Court's deliberations. But under some circumstances they should have an indirect bearing on which cases receive priority. The judiciary has the primary responsibility—both real and symbolic—as the guardian of the rule of law. When an administrative action brings the rule of law into disrepute, the courts should be mindful of the threat it poses to the legal system.
FN10 When the issue is put in terms of who should decide, the majorities are extremely strong. Approximately 70% agreed that, "Decisions about how to reasonably accommodate transgender students should be made by parents, teachers, and local districts, not federal bureaucrats." See Mark Schreiber & Elizabeth Fender, Placing Gender Politics over Privacy: How President Obama's Transgender Policy for Schools Makes Matters Worse (May 2016), available at http://thf-reports.s3.amazo-naws.com/2016/SOGIGovOnePager.pdf. See also Bradford Richardson, Two-Thirds of Americans Oppose Obama's Transgender Bathroom Order: Poll Washington Times (July 12, 2016). Amici suspect the opposition might be even greater if the difference between "transgenders" (those who simply psychologically identify with the opposite sex) and "transsexuals" (those who have surgically altered their bodies) were explained.
(Note to Students: “OCR” is the US Dept of Education’s “Office of Civil Rights”. Under the Obama Administration, the OCR wrote a guidance letter endorsing that students be permitted to use the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity.)

Politics link – Aff = controversy

The Aff will be high-profile and controversial

Heriot ‘16

et al ; Gail L. Heriot is a Professor of Law at the University of San Diego School of Law. Since 2007 she has been a member of the United States Commission on Civil Rights. Gail was also a professor and associate dean at George Mason University School of Law. She is a former civil rights council to the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Amicus Brief - GLOUCESTER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, Petitioner, v. G. G., BY HIS NEXT FRIEND AND MOTHER, DEIRDRE GRIMM, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE GAIL HERIOT AND PETER N. KIRSANOW, MEMBERS OF THE U.S. COMMISSION ON CWIL RIGHTS, IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS PRWATE CITIZENS, IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER – September – Available at SCOUTS blog – along with all amicus briefs on this matter – modified to avoid potentially objectionable language - http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/16-273-cert-amicus-heriot.pdf

This Case Has Captured the Public's Attention as a Symbol of the Rule of Law's Decline; Vindicating the Rule of Law in this Case Is Thus Vital to the Health of the American System of Laws.

For a variety of reasons, many abuses of the administrative state slip by the public unnoticed. Similarly, legitimate governmental actions are sometimes unfairly called abusive. This case is different: It is correctly viewed (considered) by many as an egregious overreach. When the preliminary injunctions in both this case and its opposite, Texas v. United States, Civil Action No. 7:16-cv-00054-O (N.D. Tex. Aug. 21, 2016), were issued, they made the news across the country.

It is not hard to see why. First, the statutory interpretation issue can be readily grasped. Few would argue that Title IX's sex discrimination ban was originally understood to require OCR's conclusions. Indeed, OCR made no such claim. See supra at Section II. As for Price Waterhouse and Oncale, few have ever heard of them, and if they did hear of them they would be unlikely to believe that such decisions could change a statute's clear meaning.

Second, fairly or unfairly, the underlying social issue tends to provoke a strong response from many members of the public. When Target Corporation announced on April 19, 2016, that it would begin inviting transgendered individuals to use the store restroom that corresponds to their gender identity rather than to their sex (as was clearly Target's legal right), an online petition began to be circulated. As of this writing (September 4th), it has garnered the signatures of 1,417,548 individuals, all of whom have pledged to boycott Target (as was clearly the legal right of the signatories).8 Google reports that Target's stock plummeted over 15.7% between April 19th and September 2nd (market closing as of the time of this writing), while its chief competitor, Wal-Mart, saw its stock increase 3.9%.

Similarly, the issue of toilet, locker room, and shower assignment was thought by some (perhaps correctly in retrospect) to be embedded in a Houston initiative that prohibited gender identity discrimination. As a result, Houston voters (a group that voted heavily for President Obama in 2012) voted it down by a 3 to 1 margin.

Supporters of the Transgender Guidances have argued that male-to-female transgendered persons are no threat to the safety of females.9 Opponents have argued that OCR's (and Target's) policy requires no proof that one psychologically identifies with the opposite sex. The effect is that ill-motivated individuals can use the intimate facility of their choice without fear of being turned away. In some instances, this has led to tragic results. See, e.g., Sam Pazzano, Predator Who Claimed to be Transgender Declared Dangerous Offender, Toronto Sun, Feb. 26, 2014.

Even if one regards these cases to be too rare to be significant in setting public policy, they will be discussed in lurid detail on the radio, television, newspapers, magazines, and blogs and circulated over Face-book and Twitter.

Polls indicate that strong majorities of Americans oppose OCR's policies.FN10 Of course, polls should not drive this Court's deliberations. But under some circumstances they should have an indirect bearing on which cases receive priority. The judiciary has the primary responsibility—both real and symbolic—as the guardian of the rule of law. When an administrative action brings the rule of law into disrepute, the courts should be mindful of the threat it poses to the legal system.
(Note to Students: “OCR” is the US Dept of Education’s “Office of Civil Rights”. Under the Obama Administration, the OCR wrote a guidance letter endorsing that students be permitted to use the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity.)