A new rule on Title IX that includes LGBTQ individuals has been blocked from going into effect in six additional states by a federal judge in a recent ruling.
On Monday, the injunction was issued, following the recent blockage of the rule in four states by another judge.
The rule released by the Department of Education in April is slated to go into effect on August 1. It provides clarity that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity constitutes unlawful sex discrimination under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Any school that prohibits transgender and nonbinary students from accessing restrooms or locker rooms of their choice or using their preferred pronouns would be committing illegal discrimination, as would schools that don’t intervene in anti-LGBTQ+ bullying or harassment. The rule would also expand protections for students who are pregnant or parenting. It would apply to any K-12 school, college, or university that receives federal funding.
In a legal battle over the rule, Republican attorneys general from 26 states have filed a lawsuit. The attorneys general argue that the rule is an assault on women’s rights. However, those who advocate for LGBTQ+ equality disagree with their stance. In a surprising move, Chief Judge Danny C. Reeves of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky sided with the challengers in his order issued on Monday. He granted a preliminary injunction that prevents the rule from being enforced in the six states involved in the lawsuit while their case is being heard. According to Judge Reeves, the challengers are likely to win the case.
In the order applicable to Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia, the statement reads, “There are two sexes: male and female.” The author points out that more than fifty years ago, Congress acknowledged the disparity in educational opportunities between girls and boys. To address this imbalance, Congress passed the Education Amendments Act of 1972, commonly known as Title IX. For over five decades, educational institutions have had to comply with Title IX’s mandates to avoid losing federal funding.
“The case at hand is centered on the executive branch’s attempt to significantly alter the purpose and essence of Title IX through the process of rulemaking,” he stated. “Nevertheless, six states, a Christian educators’ association, and a fifteen-year-old girl are in disagreement. They rightly assert that the new rule contradicts the clear language of Title IX by redefining ‘sex’ to encompass gender identity, infringes on the First Amendment rights of government employees, and is the outcome of arbitrary and capricious rulemaking. If the new rule is permitted to come into effect on August 1, 2024, all plaintiffs will suffer immediate and irreparable damage. Due to the probability of the plaintiffs succeeding on the merits of their claims, and the public interest and equities strongly favoring their position, the new rule will be restrained, and its application will be halted.”
The order issued by Judge Reeves has received praise from Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman and his Tennessee counterpart, Jonathan Skrmetti, who jointly led the case. Coleman, who was motivated by his concern for the safety of women and girls, issued a statement commending the ruling. He acknowledged the role Title IX has played in creating educational opportunities for students and athletes over the past five decades. Furthermore, he expressed gratitude for the court’s decision and pledged to continue fighting against the Biden Administration’s efforts to dismantle protections for political gain.
The Athletics sector is not addressed in the current administration’s rule. However, the Department of Education has put forward a separate rule, which asserts that complete exclusion of transgender student athletes from competition based on their gender identity is an act of discrimination that is unlawful. Nevertheless, schools may still exclude them in certain circumstances. It is important to note that this rule is not yet finalized.
On Thursday, Judge Terry A. Doughty, the chief judge for the Western District of Louisiana, put a halt to the enforcement of the April Title IX rule in four states, namely Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, and Idaho, all of which filed their own lawsuit. The judge pointed out that Title IX was put in place to protect biological females from discrimination, but the Final Rule could potentially lead to more discrimination against them. Allowing biological men who identify as females into locker rooms, showers, and bathrooms puts biological females at risk of having their privacy invaded, being embarrassed, and being sexually assaulted.
Similar to Reeves, he discovered that those who contest the regulation have a high probability of winning. As a result, he has issued a restraining order that prevents its enforcement while the legal case against it is being heard.
According to The Salt Lake Tribune, the state legislature in Utah will convene in a special session on Wednesday with the aim of preventing the enforcement of the rule in the state. The rule conflicts with a Utah law that prohibits transgender individuals from using restrooms and other single-sex facilities in government buildings that do not align with the gender they were assigned at birth. As per the Utah Constitutional Sovereignty Act, lawmakers have the power to pass a resolution stating that a federal action goes against the U.S. Constitution. The state officials would then be instructed to disregard or not obey the federal mandate until a court orders the state to comply.
A federal judge in Texas has recently halted a move by the Biden administration. The administration had released nonbinding guidelines in 2021 that advised schools to follow an interpretation of Title IX similar to the one presented in the April rule. However, the judge’s injunction only applies in Texas.