The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has just sided with Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina, the Biden Administration’s Title IX rule that hoped to extend protections for LGBTQ students.
Appealing Court Decision
A federal appeals court has just temporarily halted a new Title IX rule addressing sex-based discrimination, siding with Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina.
Legal Challenges
The new rule was set to take effect on August 1 and is meant to protect LGBTQ+ students from discrimination, but it is now facing legal challenges from several states across the nation.
Changes to Title IX
The Biden administration’s changes to Title IX were intended to expand protections against sex discrimination to include transgender students to ensure transgender students are protected from discrimination in educational settings.
Violating Rights
Now, states are arguing that the rule violates privacy rights and exceeds the Department of Education’s authority, prompting similar injunctions across the U.S.
Radical Changes
In their motion for an administrative injunction, the plaintiffs’ attorneys argued, “The regulations require a series of radical changes at schools that take federal money.”
Federal Judge’s Ruling
U.S. District Judge Annemarie Carney Axon initially denied the states’ request for a preliminary injunction, believing their arguments were not convincing enough to warrant such relief.
Establishing Likelihood
Axon wrote, “Plaintiffs must, among other things, establish a substantial likelihood of success on the claims advanced in their complaint to obtain a preliminary injunction from this court. They failed to sustain that burden.”
Impact on Schools
The rule requires schools to make significant changes, including policy updates and staff training, which states argue would be costly and complex.
Costing Millions
In their motion, the plaintiffs said, “The rule itself estimates that compliance will cost millions.”
Upending Status Quo
“Here, the rule upends the status quo by requiring schools to digest hundreds of pages of new regulations, change their policies, train their employees, and much more,” the motion said.
Broader Legal Context
The new rule extends Title IX protections to include discrimination based on gender identity, aligning with a 2020 Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County.
States’ Arguments
The plaintiffs also claim that the Biden administration lacks the authority to implement such a rule, especially when it conflicts with state laws on education and public facilities.
Conflicting With State Laws
“The rule conflicts with many of the state plaintiffs’ laws that govern public institutions of higher education and primary and secondary education, including laws involving harassment, bathrooms, sports, parental rights and more,” the lawsuit stated.
Administration’s Defense
However, the Department of Justice defended the rule, emphasizing the importance of preventing discrimination in educational settings and the harmful effects of harassment based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Devastating Consequences
A Justice Department brief stated, “Sex discrimination in educational environments has devastating consequences, including the effects of harassment based on sexual orientation and gender identity.”
Federal and Judicial Reactions
However, the Department of Justice has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to limit the scope of injunctions related to gender identity discrimination as they seek clarity on which parts of the rule can be enforced.
Limiting Injunctions
The DOJ stated, “We request that the Supreme Court limit the injunctions to the specific provisions challenged, allowing the rest of the rule to take effect while the appeals process continues.”
Ongoing Legal Battles
Multiple states have filed lawsuits against the new Title IX rule, resulting in varied judicial responses across the country, with twenty-six states already blocking them temporarily.
State Responses
Officials from the states involved have expressed relief and a determination to continue their legal fight against the rule, emphasizing the need to protect state laws and educational policies.
A Big Win For Children
South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson stated, “This is a big win in our fight to protect children. We’ve argued that the Biden administration does not have the authority to make this change.”
Featured Image Credit: Shutterstock / Felix Lipov.
