COVINGTON, Ky. (CN) — The Biden administration exceeded its authority when it expanded the scope of Title IX to include protections for LGBTQ+ students, a federal judge in Kentucky ruled Thursday.
The states of Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana, and West Virginia, along with the commonwealths of Kentucky and Virginia, sued :U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona, in 2024, and accused the federal government of bypassing the legislative process to push a political agenda.
At issue is a final rule passed by the department in April 2024 that clarified Title IX includes protections for individuals discriminated against on the basis of “sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity.”
The rule also allowed Title IX claims for conduct that occurs outside the classroom or campus, including on social media platforms.
The lawsuit in Kentucky was one of several filed across the country and compelled 26 states to stop enforcement of the rule, which President-elect Donald Trump promised to repeal upon taking office.
Chief U.S. District Judge Danny Reeves, a George W. Bush appointee, granted the states’ motion for a preliminary injunction in June 2024, and on Thursday criticized the department for its interpretation of both Title IX and the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, Ga., an employment discrimination case.
“Put simply, there is nothing in the text or statutory design of Title IX to suggest that discrimination ‘on the basis of sex’ means anything other than it has since Title IX’s inception — that recipients of federal funds under Title IX may not treat a person worse than another similarly situated individual on the basis of the person’s sex, i.e, male or female,” he said.
In Bostock, the nation’s high court determined Title VII extended protections to transgender individuals because “transgender status is inextricably bound up with sex,” but Reeves drew a distinction between the two federal laws.
“The department reads Bostock far too broadly, [in which the court] expressly limited its holding to Title VII and, even in that restricted context, ‘did not purport to address bathrooms, locker rooms, or anything else of the kind.’
“Bostock is a very shaky place for the department to hang its hat,” he concluded.
Republican Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti hailed the decision as a victory against his opposing party’s “radical agenda” in a statement.
“This is a huge win for Tennessee, for common sense, and for women and girls across America,” he said. “The court’s ruling is yet another repudiation of the Biden administration’s relentless push to impose a radical gender ideology through unconstitutional and illegal rulemaking.
“Because the Biden rule is vacated altogether, President Trump will be free to take a fresh look at our Title IX regulations when he returns to office.”
In his decision, Reeves said the rule “turns Title IX on its head,” which he said necessarily includes exceptions to allow the separation of men and women athletes in certain circumstances based on their sex.
“The entire point of Title IX is to prevent discrimination based on sex — throwing gender identity into the mix eviscerates the statute and renders it largely meaningless,” he said.
Putting the statutory language of Title IX aside, Reeves was equally adamant the rule is unconstitutional and violates the First Amendment by, among other things, requiring teachers to use students’ preferred pronouns.
“Put simply, the First Amendment does not permit the government to chill speech or compel affirmance of a belief with which the speaker disagrees in this manner,” he said.
The department sought to have only the challenged portions of the final rule severed if a decision went against it, but Reeves ultimately determined the entire rule had to be scrapped.
“The court remains persuaded that the three challenged provisions fatally taint the entire rule,” he said. “As the court has explained, the definition of discrimination ‘on the basis of sex’ lies at the heart of Title IX and permeates virtually every provision of the law.”
Reeves pointed out every court presented with the question has ruled against the department, while removal would also return Title IX to the status quo “that existed for more than 50 years.”
The Department of Education did not immediately respond to a request comment.