Law & Courts

Biden’s Title IX Rule Takes Effect Amid a Confusing Legal Landscape

The Supreme Court has not acted on an emergency request to allow most of the rule to take effect nationwide
By Mark Walsh — July 31, 2024 7 min read
The U.S. Supreme Court is seen on Thursday, June 29, 2023, in Washington.
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

The Biden administration’s new Title IX regulation expanding protections for LGTBQ+ students goes into effect Aug. 1—in a confused and patchwork fashion as injunctions have blocked it in 26 states as well as at some schools in other states. It also takes effect as the U.S. Supreme Court weighs an emergency request from the Biden administration to partially limit those injunctions and allow most of the rule to take effect across the country.

The U.S. Department of Education regulation clarifies for the first time that the 1972 federal statute, which bars sex discrimination in federally funded educational programs, protects students based on sexual orientation and gender identity. It also expands protections for pregnant and postpartum students, offers stronger language about retaliation, and sets out new grievance and due-process procedures.

The regulation has been challenged by 26 states as well as individual school districts, students, and private groups. Most of those challenges center on the law’s revised definition of sex discrimination to include gender identity, which the challengers contend is not consistent with the text of Title IX.

See also

Misy Sifre, 17, and others protest for transgender rights at the Capitol in Salt Lake City, March 25, 2022. On Tuesday, July 2, 2024, a federal judge in Kansas blocked a federal rule expanding anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ students from being enforced in four states, including Utah and a patchwork of places elsewhere across the nation.
Misy Sifre, 17, and others protest for transgender rights at the Capitol in Salt Lake City, March 25, 2022. On Tuesday, July 2, 2024, a federal judge in Kansas blocked a federal rule expanding anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ students from being enforced in four states, including Utah and a patchwork of places elsewhere across the nation. The case is one of eight legal challenges to those expanded legal protections contained in new Title IX regulations issued by the Biden administration.
Spenser Heaps/The Deseret News via AP
Federal Which States Have Sued to Stop Biden's Title IX Rule?
Libby Stanford, July 8, 2024
3 min read

Federal district courts have issued preliminary injunctions in recent weeks that block the rule in 22 states. One injunction also blocks it at any school attended by any child of the member of Moms for Liberty or two other challenging groups. Meanwhile, one federal district judge this week rejected the request for a preliminary injunction, in a suit brought by four conservative-leaning states—Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. But late Wednesday, a federal appeals court intervened and blocked the rule in those states at least pending further briefing in the next few days.

A request for emergency relief awaits Supreme Court action

Many educators and legal experts were expecting the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in by the Aug. 1 effective date, but as of late in the day July 31, the court had not acted.

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar last week asked the high court to allow most of the Title IX rule to take effect on Aug. 1, even as the Biden administration went along with pausing some challenged provisions that touch on gender-identity discrimination.

In requests that technically stemmed from the challenges involving 10 states, Prelogar said in her two main filings that the Biden administration did not object to pausing two provisions that she characterized as being at the heart of the multiple lawsuits challenging the new regulation. One of those deals with restrooms, locker rooms, and other sex-separated spaces in education. The regulation says, for example, that a school would violate Title IX if it prohibits transgender individuals from using restrooms that align with their gender identity.

The other challenged provision the administration is OK with leaving halted for now involves an update to the definition of “hostile-environment harassment” to include harassment based on gender identity. The challengers assert that language would be used to require teachers and students to refer to transgender students by pronouns that align with their gender identity.

Prelogar said the administration would defend those provisions in the course of the litigation but was not seeking to limit the injunction against them with its emergency request in the Supreme Court.

“Most of the rule does not address gender identity,” Prelogar said, citing among other things the regulation’s protections for pregnant and postpartum students, stronger language about retaliation, and new grievance procedures.

The solicitor general, however, did ask the justices to stay the injunctions with respect to the revised overall definition of sex discrimination in the regulation.

Prelogar argued for allowing the full definition, with its inclusion of gender identity, to go into effect. But as a fallback position, she suggested the reference to gender identity could be blocked while the rest of the definition went into effect.

States challenging the Title IX rule argue that Biden administration is trying to ‘salvage’ it by throwing some provisions ‘overboard’

Louisiana, in a brief responding to the solicitor general’s emergency application, said the U.S. Department of Education “has failed to convince a single court that the rule is likely lawful” and that as its “losses have mounted, the department has tried … to salvage the rule by throwing overboard the provisions that the department finds least defensible.”

Louisiana is defending a June 13 injunction issued by a federal district judge that also applies to Idaho, Mississippi, and Montana. That case is U.S. Department of Education v. Louisiana.

Alliance Defending Freedom, the conservative legal organization heavily involved in several of the challenges to the Title IX rule, filed a brief in the Supreme Court on behalf of its client in the Louisiana case, the Rapides Parish school board.

The brief said a partial stay of the injunction would be harmful because “schools would have to work out how the rule functions without its key provisions, amend their policies, and train their staff accordingly” all in short order and then possibly have to do it again after judicial review of the regulation was complete.

Meanwhile, the other case before the court is Cardona v. Tennessee, in which Tennessee along with Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Virginia, and West Virginia is defending a June 17 district court injunction blocking the entire rule. Those states argued in a brief that the Biden administration was inappropriately seeking a “merits preview” from the Supreme Court of the key issue of whether Title IX covers gender identity “to stem the tide of adverse decisions” from lower courts.

“The states challenged the whole rule” and “are injured by the whole rule,” the Tennessee brief said.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, in Cincinnati, accepted that argument in a 2-1 panel decision on July 17 that upheld the injunction in the Tennessee-led case. The majority of that panel sought to explain why it believed blocking part or all of the new definition of sex discrimination would be problematic for the rule’s other provisions.

“Each of the provisions that the department wishes to begin enforcing on August 1 implicates the new definition of sex discrimination,” the 6th Circuit said. “It is hard to see how all of the schools covered by Title IX could comply with this wide swath of new obligations if the rule’s definition of sex discrimination remains [blocked].”

One separate injunction also applies to certain schools in a wider swath of states

Only one federal judge has rejected a preliminary injunction. On July 30, U.S. District Judge Annemarie Carney Axon of Birmingham, Ala., an appointee of President Donald Trump, rejected a preliminary injunction sought by Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina to block the regulation. The plaintiffs’ evidence was sparse and their legal arguments were “conclusory and underdeveloped,” she said.

Late on July 31, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, granted an emergency request by the plaintiffs in that case to block the regulation in those four states.

Several other federal district courts did issue injunctions blocking the regulation in 12 states in addition to the 10 involved in the emergency applications in the Supreme Court. One of those, issued July 2 by a U.S. district judge in Kansas, covers that state plus Alaska, Utah, and Wyoming. It also has a unusual provision covering any school attended by children of members of three groups that joined that challenge, regardless of which state those schools are in. Those groups are Young America’s Foundation, Female Athletes United, and Moms for Liberty.

Judge John W. Broomes on July 19 declined a request from Moms for Liberty, which is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, to alter his injunction to cover any county where there was a school attended by one of the group’s members, which would have even further expanded the geographic scope. But he did clarify that the groups could enlist new members and add their children’s schools to the list.

That prompted Moms for Liberty last week to launch an effort to enlist new members and have new and existing members add the names of their children’s schools to their profiles.

“In order to give the judge a list of these schools while protecting the names of our members, which could be connected to their minor children, we will submit a list of schools where members opted in to be protected from Title IX through our website,” Moms for Liberty co-founders Tina Descovich and Tiffany Justice said in a July 23 statement.

Events

This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Assessment Webinar
Reflections on Evidence-Based Grading Practices: What We Learned for Next Year
Get real insights on evidence-based grading from K-12 leaders.
Content provided by Otus
Artificial Intelligence K-12 Essentials Forum How AI Use Is Expanding in K-12 Schools
Join this free virtual event to explore how AI technology is—and is not—improving K-12 teaching and learning.
Federal Webinar Navigating the Rapid Pace of Education Policy Change: Your Questions, Answered
Join this free webinar to gain an understanding of key education policy developments affecting K-12 schools.

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Law & Courts Trump Can't Enforce Anti-DEI Directives in Schools, 3 Judges Say
Three judges, including two Trump appointees, said the administration had overstepped its authority in its efforts to rid schools of DEI.
7 min read
Sarah Hinger (center), deputy director of the ACLU Racial Justice Program, takes questions from reporters after oral arguments in a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of New Hampshire seeking to block the Trump administration from requiring public schools to end DEI programs on April 17, 2025.
Sarah Hinger (center), deputy director of the ACLU racial justice program, takes questions from reporters after oral arguments in a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of New Hampshire seeking to block the Trump administration from requiring public schools to end DEI programs on April 17, 2025. Two federal judges on Thursday issued orders limiting the Trump administration's ability to enforce its anti-DEI directives to schools and colleges.
Courtesy of Ethan DeWitt/New Hampshire Bulletin
Law & Courts Supreme Court Leans Toward Parents on Opt-Outs for LGBTQ+ Lessons
The U.S. Supreme Court took up a case on whether religious parents may remove their children from public school lessons on LGBTQ+ topics.
6 min read
A selection of books featuring LGBTQ characters that are part of a Supreme Court case are pictured, Tuesday, April, 15, 2025, in Washington.
A selection of books featuring LGBTQ+ characters that are part of a U.S. Supreme Court case are pictured on April, 15, 2025, in Washington.
Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP
Law & Courts Supreme Court Faces Big Test on Religious Students' Opt-Outs From LGBTQ+ Books
The justices will weigh whether a school district must allow parents with religious objections to LGBTQ+ books to excuse their children.
9 min read
Jeff Roman works on homework with his son.
Jeff Roman, a parent who has religious concerns about LGBTQ+ storybooks used in the Montgomery County, Md., school district, works on homework with his son.
Courtesy of Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
Law & Courts Another Court Lets the Trump Admin. Keep Teacher-Training Grants Frozen
A federal appeals court overturned a lower court's order that had temporarily restored millions of dollars in terminated grant funds.
4 min read
Young Female Teacher Giving a Lecture During an Adult Education Course in School, Having a Conversation with a Older Female with Laptop. Diverse Mature Students Doing Textbook Exercises in Classroom
iStock/Getty