Quantcast

ST. LOUIS RECORD

Tuesday, November 5, 2024

Federal judge grants motion to block Title IX rewrite

State Court
Webp 124

Attorney General Andrew Bailey | Attorney General Andrew Bailey Official Website

JEFFERSON CITY — A federal judge granted a motion to block a rewrite to Title IX allowing biological males in female spaces.

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey filed the motion in the Eastern District of Missouri. U.S. District Judge Rodney W. Sippel granted the motion. The court declined to issue a nationwide preliminary injunction in the case.

"It is hereby ordered that the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction...is granted only as follows: pending final resolution of this case, defendants, and all their respective officers, agents, employees, attorneys and persons...are enjoined from implementing, enacting, enforcing or taking any action in any manner to enforce the Final Rule promulgated by the Department of Education titled 'Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance' and published in the Federal Register...set to become effective on August 1, 2024, against plaintiffs Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota and A.F. and is denied in all other respects,"  Sippel writes in the order.

The court reviewed the motion by plaintiffs, which consisted of the six states and one minor from Arkansas, seeking a stay or preliminary injunction against the new rule issued by the U.S. Department of Education. 

The rule would be effective Aug. 1 and would expand Title IX protections to include discrimination based on sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, sexual orientation and gender identity. 

The plaintiffs argued that the rule was unlawful, exceeded statutory authority and imposed burdens that conflicted with state laws, potentially causing irreparable harm and conflicting with Supreme Court precedents.

The Department of Education, defending the rule, asserted it aligned with Supreme Court rulings, such as Bostock v. Clayton County, which broadened anti-discrimination protections. 

The department argued that the rule was a legitimate interpretation of Title IX, balancing federal mandates with state exceptions where applicable. 

The plaintiffs, including states that risk losing federal funding if they fail to comply, argued that the rule infringed on state sovereignty and imposed administrative and operational burdens.

 The case highlights the tension between federal regulations and state laws, especially concerning evolving definitions of discrimination and enforcement under Title IX. 

Bailey said the judge granting the motion was a huge win for women across the country.

"The Court recognized that Joe Biden’s plan to allow biological males into female spaces was not only blatantly illegal, but also a slap in the face to every woman in America," Bailey said in a provided statement to St. Louis Record. "As the father of a young daughter, I take this fight personally. My office will continue to fight for the preservation of women and girls, who have a right to thrive without fear of being erased by a radical transgender ideology."

Since 1972, Title IX has prohibited discrimination based on sex in educational programs. 

However, the new rule significantly alters the interpretation by prioritizing self-identified gender identity over biological sex.

Critics argue this rule undermines Title IX’s original protections, particularly affecting women’s sports, privacy in facilities and state laws.

The rule threatens to penalize schools and individuals who oppose these changes, potentially compromising privacy and fair competition for female athletes.

In response, the named states filed a lawsuit challenging the rule. The plaintiffs, including A.F., a 15-year-old student and athlete, argued that the rule violates the federal Constitution and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). 

The plaintiffs were seeking to block the rule's implementation, claiming it imposed unlawful requirements and damaged women's sports and privacy.

The plaintiffs were requesting a stay of the rule's effective date, a preliminary injunction, and judicial declarations that the rule is unlawful. 

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri case number: 4:24-cv-00636

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News