The U.S. Supreme Court declined to allow President Joe Biden’s administration to enforce a significant part of a new rule aimed at protecting LGBTQ+ students from discrimination based on gender identity in 10 Republican-led states that had challenged the measure.
The justices rejected the administration’s request to partially lift lower court injunctions, which had blocked the implementation of the rule that expands protections under Title IX. Title IX is a federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in education programs receiving federal funding. The blocked rule, announced in April and set to take effect on August 1, cannot be enforced by the U.S. Education Department in Tennessee, Louisiana, and eight other states while legal battles continue.
The administration sought to reinstate a key provision that clarifies discrimination “on the basis of sex” to include sexual orientation and gender identity. The rule also contains numerous other provisions unrelated to gender identity that the administration wished to enforce.
Biden’s administration appealed to the Supreme Court on an emergency basis in response to lawsuits filed by Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Idaho, various Louisiana school boards, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, West Virginia, and an association of Christian educators.
“These final regulations clarify Title IX’s requirement that schools promptly and effectively address all forms of sex discrimination,” stated U.S. Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Catherine Lhamon when the rule was announced. “We look forward to working with schools, students, and families to prevent and eliminate sex discrimination.”
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill criticised the rule, labelling it a federal overreach that would undermine Title IX and accusing the Biden administration of pushing an “extreme gender ideology.” She argued that the rule was politically motivated and disregarded significant safety concerns for female students nationwide.
Murrill also expressed concerns that the rule would force schools to change their policies on private spaces for female students and compel the use of transgender students’ pronouns, which she deemed “enormously invasive” and beyond the administration’s authority.
The states and other plaintiffs argued that the rule would require schools to allow transgender students to use restrooms and locker rooms and compel faculty to address them according to their gender identities. These lawsuits are among several that have successfully blocked the rule in 22 states, primarily Republican-governed, with opponents claiming the Biden administration is unlawfully redefining a law initially designed to protect women from discrimination in education.
However, on July 30, the administration secured a victory when a federal judge in Alabama declined to block the rule in that state and in Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. Yet, the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily halted this ruling the following day.
The Biden administration’s rule introduces several changes to Title IX regulations, including protections for LGBTQ+ individuals and enhanced safeguards for pregnant students, parents, and guardians. The administration argued that protecting LGBTQ+ students under Title IX is a “straightforward application” of the Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling, which determined that a similar law, Title VII, also covers discrimination against gay and transgender employees in the workplace.
Nevertheless, U.S. Judges Terry Doughty of Louisiana and Danny Reeves of Kentucky ruled that Title IX’s reference to sex pertains only to “biological” males and females, asserting that the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision did not apply in this context.
While the administration acknowledged that two key provisions involving restrooms, locker rooms, and pronouns could remain blocked during the appeals process, it contended that most of the rule does not relate to gender identity and should be allowed to take effect. It also clarified that the rule does not alter “existing requirements governing sex separation in athletics,” an issue that will be addressed through separate rulemaking.
The administration’s efforts to enforce the rule were denied by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.
In a related matter, the Supreme Court agreed in June to hear another case from Tennessee, which involves a Republican-backed ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors. That case will be heard in the next term, beginning in October.
