You have /5 articles left.
Sign up for a free account or log in.

The Biden administration’s new rule overhauling Title IX, the federal gender-equity law, is on hold in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia after a federal judge issued an order temporarily blocking the regulations from taking effect in those states Aug. 1.

Chief Judge Danny Reeves of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, found that the final regulations, which clarify that Title IX prohibits discrimination based on sexual and gender identity, are inconsistent with the underlying Title IX statute, Congress’s intentions in passing the law, and the way it’s been regulated.

The expanded definition of sex-based discrimination “wreaks havoc on Title IX,” Reeves wrote. “Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 was intended to level the playing field between men and women in education,” he said. “The statute tells us that no person shall be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance ‘on the basis of sex.’ However, the Department of Education seeks to derail deeply rooted law with a Final Rule that is set to go into effect on August 1, 2024.”

Reeves is the second federal judge to rule against the Biden administration in the past week. The regulations are now temporarily blocked in 10 states—with more possibly to come. Over all, 26 state’s Republican attorneys general have challenged the regulations across seven different lawsuits, taking particular issue with the changes in the final rule clarifying that Title IX prohibits discrimination based on sexual and gender identity. They’ve argued in court filings that the new regulations will prohibit gender-specific facilities, such as restrooms and locker rooms.

Like the four states that won an injunction last week—Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi and Montana—the six states asserted that the final regulations violate the plain text of Title IX, infringe on government employees’ First Amendment rights, and are “arbitrary and capricious.”

Reeves largely agreed with the states, writing that the rule “is arbitrary in the truest sense of the word” and carries “serious First Amendment implications.” The judge also said that the department didn’t adequately account for concerns raised during the Education Department’s public comment period about “potential risks posed to student and faculty safety” by expanding protections to transgender students.

“Instead, it simply says it ‘does not agree’ with commenters who allege there is evidence that transgender students pose a safety risk to other students,” Reeves wrote. “Surely, more is required than a categorical dismissal of serious concerns such as these.”

The Biden administration is expected to appeal the order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.