Judges Block Title IX Changes for Erasing Biological Women

Today, a Kentucky judge granted a preliminary injunction to Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Indiana, Virginia, and West Virginia which temporarily freezes in those states the U.S. Department of Education’s (DOE) redefinition of “sex discrimination,” prohibition of single-sex spaces, such as restrooms and locker rooms, and a requirement to use preferred pronouns on campuses. Last week, a judge in Louisiana granted a similar injunction to Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, and Idaho while a Texas judge ruled that Texas public schools do not have to implement the rules.

These injunctions prevent the updated rules from taking effect in these 11 states while litigation continues in each case to determine permanent decisions. The move responsible for the multitude of lawsuits came April 29 when the DOE published the Title IX Final Rule on the Federal Register, which expanded the definition of “sex” and “sex discrimination” to include “gender identity” and “sexual orientation” as protected categories against discrimination. The revamped Title IX is supposed to take effect nationwide August 1, 2024.

U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty in Louisiana stated in his four-state injunction order that the new Title IX Final Rule framework violates free speech, free exercise of religion, the spending clause, and “is arbitrary and capricious.”

“…by allowing biological men who identify as a female into locker rooms, showers, and bathrooms, biological females risk invasion of privacy, embarrassment, and sexual assault,” wrote Judge Doughty. He further noted that the new rules allow a person to gain access to opposite sex spaces through a simple declaration that they have “changed gender identities,” which ultimately “places biological females at risk.”

Judge Doughty noted that the Title IX Final Rule only focuses on students with gender confusion while failing to address the rule’s effect on other students.

“Title IX was intended to prevent biological women from discrimination,” wrote Judge Doughty. “However, the Final Rule may likely cause biological females more discrimination than they had before Title IX was enacted.”

Even though Title IX was established in 1972 to create equal educational opportunities for men and women, the Biden administration argued the law’s language implies gender identity has always been protected. According to Judge Doughty’s injunction, the Biden administration believes the word “sex” has always included “gender identity” in its meaning. Therefore, the new Title IX directs federally funded schools to allow gender-confused individuals to use spaces that correspond with their gender identity, join sex-specific organizations, construe “harassment” as a person not using someone’s preferred pronouns, and imposes additional mandates likely to result in substantial monetary costs. Failure to comply with the new regulations could result in the federal government withholding taxpayer dollars from educational institutions.

Judge Doughty determined Biden’s interpretation of “sex” would “reverse the entire premise of Title IX.”

“Here, the Final Rule would render meaningless…traditionally one-sex colleges, social fraternities and sororities, voluntary youth organizations, one-sex youth service organizations, beauty pageants, and the exemption that allows educational facilities to maintain separate living facilities,” wrote Judge Doughty. “Allowing this would allow decades of triumphs for women and men alike to go down the drain, and this Court finds that Defendants’ [interpretation of ‘sex’] is meritless.”

Judge Doughty emphasized the “ordinary meaning” of “sex discrimination” at the time of the Title IX law’s enactment “included only biological males or females.”

Ultimately, Judge Doughty’s injunction stops executive branch overreach. The injunction states decisions of “vast economic and political significance,” such as the Title IX changes, are reserved only for Congress under the “Major Questions Doctrine.”

“The Final Rule is not a clarification of existing laws – it is a new law enacted by an administrative agency,” wrote Judge Doughty. “Essentially, [the Final Rule] allows for one political ideology to dominate the educational landscape while either silencing the other or calling the other ‘harassment’ under these standards.”

The government has “no authority to rewrite Title IX and decide major questions as the Final Rule does,” and it causes biological women “immediate irreparable harm,” Judge Doughty concluded.

Chief Judge Danny Reeves in Kentucky, who barred the Title IX update in six states, wrote that the result of inserting “subjective gender identity” into the educational environment is “not only impossible to square with Title IX” but also with “the broader protection of all students.”

Additionally, District Judge Reed O’Connor in Texas determined public schools in Texas do not have to comply with the new rules because the DOE failed to use proper constitutional procedure in interpreting Title IX. He stated the framework of the new rules is an attempt to advance “an agenda wholly divorced from the text, structure, and contemporary context of Title IX.”

So far, other officials in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Oklahoma, and South Carolina are also involved in lawsuits against Title IX or have directed their state departments not to comply with the new federal rules.

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “The radical rewrite of Title IX regulations eradicates privacy, safety, and fairness for biological women and girls. The lawsuits against forcing gender ideology in education have merit and the Biden administration’s obsession with erasing women must stop.”

For more information about state laws protecting against gender ideology, visit Liberty Counsel’s website here.