In a temporary win for Florida and three other states, a federal appeals court has halted a new federal rule regarding sex-based discrimination in education programs.
Florida, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and four other plaintiffs have received approval from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, for an “administrative injunction” against a rule related to Title IX. This landmark law from 1972 prohibits discrimination in education programs based on sex.
Late on Tuesday, the plaintiffs, including the states, submitted a motion following the 122-page decision of U.S. District Judge Annemarie Carney Axon. The decision dismissed their plea for a preliminary injunction against the Title IX rule.
The U.S. Department of Education has been ordered by the Atlanta-based appeals court to refrain from enforcing the rule until further notice. The court did not provide any explanation for its decision. However, it did set a timeline for the plaintiffs to request an “injunction pending appeal,” which, if approved, would block the Title IX rule for a significant period of time while Axon’s decision is under appeal.
The battle in court is centered on the recent amendment that aims to broaden the scope of Title IX regulations to encompass discrimination based on gender identity. The regulation, which was finalized in April, was originally scheduled to become effective on Thursday.
According to the states, implementing the rule could potentially compel them to permit transgender students to use restrooms that do not align with their gender assigned at birth.
In a motion for an administrative injunction filed late on Tuesday, the attorneys for the plaintiffs stated that schools that receive federal funding are required to make significant changes in accordance with the regulations.
In response to the motion filed by the plaintiffs, the lawyers from the U.S. Department of Justice contended on Wednesday that the motion should not be granted. The lawyers argued that the plaintiffs were essentially seeking an immediate injunction to prevent the enforcement of certain portions of a regulation that was about to come into effect. They further added that the district court had exercised its discretion appropriately by declining to issue a preliminary injunction.
In her decision, Judge Axon, who was nominated to the Alabama federal bench by former President Donald Trump, stated that the plaintiffs had failed to present sufficient arguments to warrant a preliminary injunction.
Axon wrote that in order for plaintiffs to obtain a preliminary injunction from the court, they need to prove a substantial likelihood of success on the claims made in their complaint. Unfortunately, the plaintiffs failed to meet this burden.
Axon argued that the plaintiffs had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their allegations that the actions taken by the Biden administration were arbitrary and capricious. The states have accused the administration of violating the Administrative Procedure Act.
Axon stated that while more legal arguments and evidence may lead to a different outcome, the court currently declines to grant the requested preliminary injunction as it is an extraordinary form of relief.
In the federal Northern District of Alabama, a lawsuit was filed in April regarding a rule. This rule and lawsuit have come about due to the numerous actions taken by Republican-led states in recent years to pass laws and regulations regarding LGBTQ people. States have, for instance, prevented transgender students from using school bathrooms that don’t match the sex they were assigned at birth. Furthermore, they have blocked or restricted treatments like hormone therapy and puberty blockers for individuals with gender dysphoria.
According to the lawsuit, the extension of Title IX regulations by the Biden administration to cover gender identity discrimination exceeds the administration’s legal authority. The lawsuit further argues that this rule could potentially conflict with the decisions made by individual states.
According to the lawsuit, the rule contradicts numerous state laws that regulate public institutions of higher education and primary and secondary education. These laws pertain to various matters such as harassment, bathroom usage, sports, parental rights, and more. As a result, the rule obstructs the state plaintiffs’ power to govern and enforce their laws, and even coerces them to alter their laws and policies.
The Justice Department attorneys argued in a district court brief that the government’s interests in preventing discrimination would be significantly harmed by a preliminary injunction.
According to a brief from the Justice Department, sex discrimination in educational settings can have severe consequences, including the impact of harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation.
Late on Tuesday, the plaintiffs’ attorneys filed a motion at the appeals court in Atlanta, stating that other courts in different judicial districts and circuits have already issued preliminary injunctions against the rule. The motion emphasized the need for an administrative injunction to maintain the status quo, citing the high costs of complying with the rule.
The motion argues that the new regulation is causing a major disruption by necessitating schools to go through a process of incorporating hundreds of pages of new rules, modifying their policies, and training their staff, among other things. According to the rule, complying with it would cost millions, which is a significant amount.
According to the Justice Department attorneys, the plaintiffs were already aware since April that the rule would be implemented on August 1st.
The Justice Department attorneys responded on Wednesday, stating that the rule was always expected to be implemented and plaintiffs were obligated to comply. They emphasized that any delay in compliance was solely the responsibility of the plaintiffs and their recent emergency situation was a consequence of their own actions.
The U.S. Department of Education and Education Secretary Miguel Cardona are named as defendants in the lawsuit. Along with the states, the plaintiffs also include four groups: the Independent Women’s Law Center, the Independent Women’s Network, Parents Defending Education, and Speech First.