TL/DR –
A federal judge has blocked the Biden administration’s expanded Title IX regulations in six states, following conservative groups’ attempts to overturn the policy. The regulations, which broaden the definition of “sex” to include gender identity, are now halted in Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, and West Virginia. Opponents, including conservative and Christian advocacy groups, plus attorneys general in Republican states, argue the changes infringe on others’ privacy and conflict with various state laws.
Federal Judge Blocks Biden’s Title IX Regulations in Additional States
On Monday, Judge Danny C. Reeves blocked the Biden administration’s new Title IX regulations in six more states, expanding a conservative effort to overturn protections for L.G.B.T.Q. students. The judge ruled the Education Department went too far by including gender identity in the definition of “sex”.
The regulations were halted in Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia and West Virginia. This decision follows a similar ruling against the regulations in Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, and Idaho.
The revised Title IX rules, enacted in 1972 to prevent sex discrimination in federally funded education programs, have been broadened to prohibit unequal treatment of pregnant students and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Opposition to the Title IX Regulations
Conservative and Christian groups, along with Republican states, contend that the regulations infringe on privacy and contradict existing state laws. Over 20 Republican states aim to prevent the regulations from taking effect on Aug. 1. The Education Department reported tracking 10 lawsuits challenging the rules.
Judge Reeves disputed the Education Department’s justification for the changes, noting that the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County — which protected gay and transgender workers from workplace discrimination under the Civil Rights Act — did not extend these rights to students under Title IX.
The judge concurred with opponents who asserted that the original intent of Title IX was to provide equal opportunities for women, and that sex-segregation in areas like sports teams and facilities was critical to this purpose. He pointed out that the new rules accommodate a situation where student housing remains sex-segregated, while students can freely choose bathrooms and locker rooms based on gender identity.
Judge Reeves also questioned the rule’s effect on First Amendment rights, suggesting teachers could potentially face harassment allegations for refusing to use a student’s preferred pronouns if doing so conflicted with their religious or moral beliefs.
—
Read More US Political News