Law & Courts

Court Battles and Presidential Election Have Big Implications for Title IX Regulation

By Mark Walsh — October 30, 2024 4 min read
Image of a gavel
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

A federal appeals court on Oct. 30 weighed whether to reinstate elements of the Biden administration’s new Title IX regulation that don’t address gender identity—part of a larger battle over the rule that could be affected by the results of the presidential election.

Under a series of preliminary rulings by federal appeals courts, the broad new Title IX rule, which among other things protects LGBTQ+ students from discrimination based on sex, is blocked in 26 states and at some schools in others. The U.S. Supreme Court in August denied the Biden administration’s request to unblock provisions that are not related to gender identity, such as protections against pregnancy discrimination.

If former President Donald Trump prevails in next week’s presidential election, he would likely pull the 2024 Title IX regulation once back in office. A victory by Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, would likely mean the regulation stays but the battle over it in the courts would go on.

The Oct. 30 argument in Tennessee v. Cardona before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, in Cincinnati, was the first entry in the next round of legal wrangling over the regulation. The challenge—led by Tennessee and joined by Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Virginia, and West Virginia—argues that the U.S. Department of Education exceeded its authority with the new regulation and its definition of sex discrimination to include gender identity. Those states argue that the definition is inconsistent with the text of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which bars discrimination “on the basis of sex” in federally funded schools and colleges.

“Title IX does not require that girls shower and undress with boys, compete against boys with physical advantages, and room with boys on overnight school trips,” Whitney D. Hermandorfer of the Tennessee attorney general’s office, said during the Oct. 30 arguments. “But the rule imposes these and other unprecedented mandates that gut Title IX’s protections for women and privacy.”

In June, a federal district judge in Kentucky issued a preliminary injunction blocking the regulation in its entirety in those states. In a preliminary proceeding, a panel of the 6th Circuit in July refused to lift the injunction, which led to the Biden administration’s emergency application to the Supreme Court seeking relief so the bulk of the regulation could take effect everywhere. (The rule did take effect Aug. 1 for most schools in the 24 states not covered by any injunction.)

Biden administration walks a fine line in its legal argument

The new 6th Circuit proceeding is taking a closer look at the merits of the preliminary injunction.

David L. Peters, a U.S. Department of Justice lawyer, said the district court had “fundamentally erred in issuing a sweeping preliminary injunction” that blocked the entire Title IX regulation. He said the lower court misunderstood a key provision of the new regulation that adds gender identity to the definition of prohibited forms of sex discrimination.

Peters said the provision “makes clear that when a school engages in conduct that everyone agrees discriminates against a student based on their gender identity, such as giving a student detention for being transgender, that would be discrimination on the basis of sex for purposes of Title IX.”

Nonetheless, the Biden administration walks a fine line by arguing that the rest of the rule could go into effect without the definition and two other challenged provisions dealing with gender identity.

That was a view shared by the only member of the new 6th Circuit panel who had also participated in the July decision. Judge Andre B. Mathis, an appointee of President Joe Biden, had dissented from the earlier panel majority’s refusal to block the injunction. On Oct. 30, Mathis did not say anything to suggest he was veering from his view that the injunction against the regulation was too broad because it blocked provisions that were not the focus of the states’ challenge.

Judge Richard A. Griffin, appointed by President George W. Bush, also suggested that the unchallenged provisions might be able to go into effect.

“I’ve looked at” the unchallenged provisions, Griffin said to Hermandorfer. “I don’t see any relationship at all to the challenged provisions.”

But Griffin also asked some tough questions of Peters about whether the language of the Title IX statute supported the Education Department’s expansive interpretation covering gender identity.

Senior Judge Eugene E. Siler Jr., the third member of the panel and a President George H.W. Bush appointee, did not ask many questions during the 45-minute argument.

Jacob P. Warner, a lawyer with the Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents a group of Christian educators who intervened in the case to support the states’ challenge, argued before the panel that Congress did not envision federal courts trying to parse a complicated regulation to decide which provisions to block or not.

“The proper course for this court is to set aside the rule and then perhaps the agency comes back with a better rule,” Warner said.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, in New Orleans, will hold its own arguments on Nov. 4 over a separate injunction that blocks the Title IX regulation in four other states—lead state Louisiana as well as Idaho, Mississippi, and Montana. Other federal appeals courts that have declined to block injunctions against the regulation will also likely weigh further arguments this fall.

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
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
Student Well-Being Webinar
Creating Resilient Schools with a Trauma-Responsive MTSS
Join us to learn how school leaders are building a trauma-responsive MTSS to support students & improve school outcomes.
School & District Management Live Online Discussion A Seat at the Table: We Can’t Engage Students If They Aren’t Here: Strategies to Address the Absenteeism Conundrum
Absenteeism rates are growing fast. Join Peter DeWitt and experts to learn how to re-engage students & families.

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 Supreme Court Appears Unlikely to Strike Down School E-Rate Program
The Supreme Court seems unlikely to strike down the E-rate program, though some justices questioned its funding structure and oversight.
5 min read
The Supreme Court in Washington, June 30, 2024.
The U.S. Supreme Court considers a major challenge to the E-rate program for school internet connections on March 26.
Susan Walsh/AP
Law & Courts Trump Asks Supreme Court for OK to Move Ahead With Deep Teacher-Training Cuts
The Trump administration on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to allow it to cut hundreds of millions of dollars for teacher training.
2 min read
President Donald Trump, left, holds up a signed executive order as young people hold up copies of the executive order they signed at an education event in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Thursday, March 20, 2025.
President Donald Trump, left, holds up a signed executive order as young people hold up copies of the executive order they signed at an education event in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Thursday, March 20, 2025. The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to permit the cut of funding for teacher training programs.
Ben Curtis/AP
Law & Courts See All the Lawsuits Filed Over Trump's Education Policies
Here’s a look at the moves that have drawn litigation, and where the complaints stand.
5 min read
Republican presidential nominee former President Donald Trump speaks during a news conference held at Trump Tower, Friday, Sept., 6, 2024 in New York.
Donald Trump speaks during a news conference held at Trump Tower on Sept. 6, 2024 in New York. His education actions since returning to the White House in January 2025 have drawn numerous lawsuits alleging he's overstepping his authority.
Stefan Jeremiah/AP
Law & Courts Opinion Can States Bar Religious Charter Schools? The Supreme Court Will Soon Decide
Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions suggest that bans on faith-based charter schools may violate the Free Exercise Clause.
13 min read
The United States Capitol building as a bookcase filled with red, white, and blue policy books in a Washington DC landscape.
Luca D'Urbino for Education Week