On Monday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) requested that the Supreme Court take urgent action to reinstate portions of President Biden’s Title IX rule that are currently blocked in several Republican-led states. The DOJ argued that the lower court injunctions halting the rule entirely are “more burdensome” than necessary.
In April, the Education Department introduced extensive revisions to Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in educational institutions receiving federal funds.
DOJ Contends Lower Court Injunctions are More Burdensome than Needed
The revised rule, which extends protections to sexual orientation and gender identity, faced immediate backlash from Republicans who argued it deviates from the original purpose of Title IX. This led to a series of multistate lawsuits.
Federal judges have sided with the states in three cases, blocking the rule’s implementation in 15 GOP-led states while the legal disputes continue. However, the rule is expected to be implemented in other states by August 1.
Additionally, the rule’s enforcement is halted at schools attended by children of Moms for Liberty members or Young America’s Foundation affiliates, conservative organizations.
On Monday, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar requested the Supreme Court to limit the district court injunctions blocking the rule in ten states: Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, West Virginia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, and Idaho.
Prelogar contended that the injunctions should be restricted to the rule’s provisions on gender identity discrimination—the core issue in the lawsuits challenging the new Title IX regulations. The rule also enhances protections for pregnant and parenting students and revises how schools address sexual harassment and assault claims.
According to Prelogar, the states’ objections are focused on a few specific provisions related to transgender individuals, rather than challenging the majority of the changes made to Title IX.
Conservative leaders have criticized the rule for allegedly misinterpreting a 2020 Supreme Court decision on gender identity discrimination and for potentially mandating that schools accommodate transgender students in ways that conflict with laws in numerous GOP-led states.
Prelogar criticized the district court for issuing a broad injunction that prevents the implementation of the entire rule, including provisions not contested by the plaintiffs. She referenced a recent Supreme Court decision that limited a lower court’s sweeping order to enforce Idaho’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors, noting that similar restraint should be applied in this case.
“The lower courts have ignored this guidance, and the Supreme Court’s intervention is needed once again,” Prelogar concluded.
