By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Private Policy and Terms of Use.
President Joe Biden at the Democratic National Convention in August
The judge found the regulation "fatally" flawed.
A federal judge has struck down the Biden administration’s regulation interpreting Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to ban discrimination against LGBTQ+ students, especially those who are transgender.
Keep up with the latest in LGBTQ+ news and politics. Sign up for The Advocate's email newsletter.
U.S. District Judge Danny C. Reeves of Kentucky ruled Thursday that the regulation is “fatally” flawed, the Associated Press and other outlets report.
Title IX bans sex discrimination in federally funded education programs. The U.S. Department of Education’s updated regulation, announced in April, extended Title IX protections to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity explicitly. At the time, Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona said this regulation aims to ensure that “no one should have to abandon their educational aspirations due to discrimination.” This includes safeguarding the rights of transgender students to use restrooms and locker rooms that align with their gender identity and having their preferred pronouns respected.
Twenty-six Republican-dominated states had sued over the regulation, resulting in it being temporarily blocked in those states. Reeves's ruling came in a suit filed by Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, and West Virginia.
"As discussed in prior opinions of this Court, this case concerns the United States Department of Education’s attempt to bypass the legislative process and completely transform Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 through sweeping new regulations," Reeves wrote in his 15-page opinion. He cited the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling last year in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, limiting the authority of federal agencies.
"Because the Final Rule and its corresponding regulations exceed the Department’s authority under Title IX, violate the Constitution, and are the result of arbitrary and capricious agency action, the plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment will be granted and the Department’s motion for summary judgment will be denied," he continued. Summary judgment is a ruling without a full trial.
“The entire point of Title IX is to prevent discrimination based on sex,” he added. “Throwing gender identity into the mix eviscerates the statute and renders it largely meaningless.”
Reeves said that the administration's case for the wider interpretation came largely from the U.S. Supreme Court's 2020 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that job discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity amounted to sex discrimination in employment, which is banned by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But, he said, the Department of Education "reads Bostock far too broadly by importing its holding into the context of Title IX. The Court in Bostock expressly limited its holding to Title VII and, even in that restricted context '[did] not purport to address bathrooms, locker rooms, or anything else of the kind.'"
The Biden administration had already withdrawn a separate proposed rule that would assure transgender students' right to compete on sports teams aligning with their gender identity. The withdrawal and Reeves's decision come as Donald Trump is about to take office as president, having promised to oppose civil rights protections for trans people.
The National Women's Law Center denounced Reeves's ruling. “Today’s decision displays extraordinary disregard for students who are most vulnerable to discrimination and are in the most need for federal protections under the Title IX rule," said a statement from Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of the organization. "The Biden administration’s Title IX rule is essential to ensure that all students — including survivors of sexual assault and harassment, pregnant and parenting students, and LGBTQI+ students—are able to learn in a safe and welcoming environment. With these protections already removed in some states, students who experience sexual assault have had their complaints dismissed, or worse, been punished by their schools after reporting; pregnant students have been unfairly penalized for taking time off to give birth to a child; and LGBTQI+ students have faced vicious bullying and harassment just for being who they are.
“We are in the beginning of the fight to protect the rights of all students, especially LGBTQI+ students, as we transition into a new administration. This court ruling turns long standing legal precedent on its head in a direct, disproportionate attack on trans students that continues to impact their education and livelihood. For those that are harmed by this ruling, we are continuing to fight for you and your freedoms.”
The Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal group, praised the decision. The ADF represented a West Virginia student athlete and a Christian educators association, intervenors in the suit. “This is a colossal win for women and girls across the country,” said a statement from ADF CEO, President, and General Counsel Kristen Waggoner. “The Biden administration’s radical attempt to redefine sex not only tossed fairness, safety, and privacy for female students out the window, it also threatened free speech and parental rights. With this ruling, the federal court in Kentucky rejected the entire Biden rule and the administration’s illegal actions. We are thankful for the leadership of Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti and other state attorneys general who challenged this blatant overreach alongside our courageous clients. This ruling provides enormous relief for students across the country, including our client who has already suffered harassment by a male student in the locker room and on her sports team. The U.S. Supreme Court can further protect girls like our client by granting cases brought by the ACLU against West Virginia and Idaho laws that protect women’s sports.”
Idaho and West Virginia have asked the high court to review rulings that blocked them from enforcing their laws barring transgender athletes from competing under their gender identity in school sports. The challenges to the laws were brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and others on behalf of trans athletes.
