A federal appeals court on Wednesday refused to overturn a judge’s order temporarily blocking the Biden administration’s new Title IX rule, which was intended to expand protections for LGBTQ students.
The decision of the US 6th Circuit Court of Appeals was upheld a preliminary instruction It was issued last month by a federal district judge in Kentucky. The order blocked the new rule in six states — Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia — though similar legal battles are underway in Republican-led states across the country.
“As we see it, the district court probably correctly concluded that the Rule’s definition of sex discrimination exceeded the authority of the (US Education) Department,” the three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit said in its majority decision.
The Education Department did not immediately respond to email and phone calls seeking comment.
Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman hailed the latest decision as “a victory for common sense.”
“For 50 years, Title IX has created equal opportunities for women and young girls in the classroom and on the field,” said Coleman, a Republican. “Today, the 6th Circuit becomes the first appellate court in the nation to halt President Biden’s blatant assault on these fundamental protections.”
Chris Hartman, executive director of the Fairness Campaign, a Kentucky-based LGBTQ advocacy group, warned that the decision would put transgender children at risk.
“We believe that Kentucky schools have an obligation to protect all students, including transgender students, and that they must implement the new Title IX Rule regardless of the 6th Circuit’s opinion,” Hartman said in a statement Tuesday.
The rule is designed to expand Title IX civil rights protections for LGBTQ students, expand the definition of sexual harassment in schools and colleges, and add protections for victims. The new protections have been praised by civil rights advocates. But they drew backlash from opponents who said they undermined the spirit of Title IX, the 1972 law banning sex discrimination in education.
Most of the state’s attorneys general, a Republican, have sued to challenge the new rule.
The regulation goes into effect on August 1, but judges have temporarily blocked the action while lawsuits are pending in 15 states: Alaska, Indiana, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming.
The regulation faces legal challenges from 12 other states where enforcement is not suspended: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota and South Carolina.
Republicans claim the policy is a ploy to allow transgender girls to play on girls’ athletic teams. The Biden administration said the rule does not apply to athletics.
In its ruling Wednesday, a 6th Circuit panel noted that critics of the rule warned that implementing it before the start of the new school year would create a “heavy burden” on states.
The 6th Circuit panel also expedited a full hearing of the case for this fall.
In a preliminary ruling last month, U.S. District Judge Danny J. Reeves of Kentucky said Title IX was meant to “level the playing field” between men and women in education, but the department was trying to “undermine a deeply rooted law.” new policy.
“In effect, the department would be turning Title IX on its head by redefining ‘sex’ to include ‘gender identity,'” he said. “But ‘sex’ and ‘gender identity’ are not the same thing. The Department’s interpretation conflicts with the plain language of Title IX and therefore exceeds its authority to promulgate regulations pursuant to that statute.”
Responding to Reeves’ action at the time, the Department of Education said: “Title IX guarantees that no person will be discriminated against on the basis of sex in a federally funded educational environment. The Department developed the Title IX regulations after a rigorous process.
The appellate court’s decision was partially challenged by one member of the three-judge panel.
“All three members of the Board emphatically agree that these central provisions of the Rule should not be allowed to take effect on August 1,” the majority decision said. “Our humble dissent turns to the question of whether other parts of the Rule can be severed from these central provisions in this emergency.”