A federal judge in Missouri has just issued a preliminary injunction against the Biden administration’s revised Title IX rule, which redefined “sex” to include “gender identity” in order to protect trans and non-binary students from discrimination.
Context of the Ruling
A federal judge in Missouri has just blocked the Biden administration’s Title IX rule that attempted to expand protections for LGBTQ+ students across the United States.
Legal Challenges
The new rule is set to take effect on August 1 and is meant to protect LGBTQ students from discrimination, but 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.
Injunction Details
The injunction was issued by U.S. District Judge Rodney W. Sippel, halting the Department of Education from imposing the rule’s requirements on schools until the lawsuit is resolved.
Compelled to Follow
In his decision, Judge Sippel explained that while schools are not barred from adopting similar policies independently, they cannot be compelled to do so under federal mandate.
Demanding Compliance
Judge Sippel stated, “It simply prohibits defendants from demanding compliance with the Final Rule by the schools affected by this order, or imposing any consequences for such schools’ failure to comply with the Final Rule.”
State Reactions and Arguments
Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin spoke out about the decision and hailed the injunction as a victory for protecting women’s and girls’ rights in educational settings.
Griffin’s Argument
In his celebration, Griffin argued that the rule would allow men into female spaces and sports teams, which he believes contradicts the original intent of Title IX.
Protecting Students
Griffin asserted, “Congress enacted Title IX to protect and promote educational opportunities for women and girls… It also protects teachers, administrators, and students from the threat of investigation or sanction for disagreeing with the gender ideology of the Biden-Harris White House.”
Legal Basis For the Injunction
The lawsuit in question was filed by Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota, arguing that the Department of Education overstepped its authority by reinterpreting Title IX without Congressional approval.
Arbitrary and Capricious
The states claimed that this reinterpretation was “arbitrary and capricious” and violated the First Amendment by imposing new definitions of sex and gender identity throughout the nation.
Placing a Burden
Judge Sippel said, “The States presented evidence that rolling out hundreds of pages of a new rule on August 1, just before the start of the school year, will place an onerous burden on them loads of time and lots of costs that will only escalate if we leave confusion over the States’ obligations under the Rule.”
Broader Implications and Responses
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey and other state officials also view the injunction as a defense of privacy rights, particularly with bathroom and locker room use in schools.
A Slap in the Face
AG Bailey emphasized, “The Court recognized that Joe Biden’s plan to allow biological males into female spaces was not only blatantly illegal but also a slap in the face to every woman in America.”
Federal and Judicial Reactions
The Department of Justice has even 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.”
Court Cases
Unfortunately, this case seems to be part of a broader trend of conservative legal challenges to school policies that protect LGBTQ+ students from harassment and respect their identities.
Free Speech Cases
In the majority of these lawsuits targeting protections for LGBTQ+ students, they focus on free speech and claims of religious freedom.
Increasing Legislative Efforts
Nationwide, there has also been an increase in legislative efforts to limit the rights of LGBTQ+ people, including access to gender-affirming care and participation in sports.
21 Beliefs About the Bible That Are Actually False
The Bible is one of the most discussed and debated books in history, yet many common beliefs about it are more myth than fact. How many of these misconceptions have you heard before? 21 Beliefs About the Bible That Are Actually False
21 Subtle Racisms That Are Commonplace in America
Racism in America isn’t always overt; it often hides in plain sight through subtle actions and attitudes. How many of these subtle racisms have you noticed around you? 21 Subtle Racisms That Are Commonplace in America
Only Legal in America: 21 Things You CAN’T Do in the Rest of the World
The U.S. dances to its own beat, especially when it comes to laws that make the rest of the world do a double-take. Here’s a lineup of things that scream “Only in America,” sticking strictly to what’s written in the law books. Ready for a tour through the American legal landscape that’ll leave you wondering if freedom might just be a bit too free? Only Legal in America: 21 Things You CAN’T Do in the Rest of the World
Featured Image Credit: Shutterstock / Crush Rush.
