The Future of LGBTQ+ Protections in Education: Federal Judge Blocks Biden’s New Title IX Rule In 4 States

A new Title IX rule introduced by the Biden administration, aimed at expanding protections for LGBTQ+ students, has been temporarily blocked in four states. U.S. District Judge Terry A.

Doughty issued a preliminary injunction on Thursday, halting the rule in Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, and Idaho.

Judge Doughty described the new rule on LGBTQ+ protection as an “abuse of power” and a “threat to democracy,” asserting that it exceeded the Education Department’s authority.

Challenge from Republican-Led States for the LGBTQ+ Friendly Rule

The rule, which was set to be implemented in August, broadens Title IX civil rights protections to include LGBTQ+ students, redefines sexual harassment in educational institutions, and introduces additional safeguards for victims.

Louisiana, along with several other Republican-led states, filed lawsuits against the rule, arguing that it imposes significant financial burdens on schools and infringes on state sovereignty.

Judge Doughty’s order suggests that the states are likely to succeed on the merits of their case.

What is Title IX?

Title IX is a federal civil rights law that was passed as part of the Education Amendments of 1972.

It prohibits sex-based discrimination in any school or any other education program that receives funding from the federal government.

Impact on State Laws

Louisiana, along with other states involved in the lawsuit, has laws requiring individuals to use bathrooms and locker rooms based on their sex at the birth.

These laws conflict with President Biden’s rule, which seeks to supersede such restrictions.

The judge’s decision also highlighted concerns about free speech, specifically regarding the requirement for schools to use pronouns requested by students, and questioned the legal authority of the Biden administration to expand Title IX to facilitate LGBTQ+ protections in this manner.

“The Court finds that the term ‘sex discrimination’ only included discrimination against biological males and females at the time of enactment,” Judge Doughty wrote in his order.

Controversy Over Sports Participation

Another significant aspect of the judge’s decision is its potential impact on sports participation.

The new rule could be interpreted to allow transgender women and girls to compete on female sports teams, which conflicts with existing laws in several states.

Although the Biden administration has proposed a separate rule addressing athletic participation, Judge Doughty expressed concerns that the current rule could still apply to sports teams.

“The Final Rule applies to sex discrimination in any educational ‘program’ or ‘activity’ receiving Federal financial assistance,” he noted, emphasizing that the terms could include sports teams.

Response from Advocacy Groups and Officials

The ruling has been met with mixed reactions. Civil rights advocates and LGBTQ+ activists, who had praised the new protections, view the decision as a significant setback.

Conversely, opponents of the rule, including the Defense of Freedom Institute—a conservative nonprofit that supported the Louisiana lawsuit—welcomed the injunction.

“We are confident that other courts and states will soon follow,” said Bob Eitel, president of the nonprofit and a former education official during the Trump administration.

Historical Context and Future Implications

The Biden administration’s rule replaced a previous one created by former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos during the Trump administration.

DeVos’ rule had narrowed the definition of sexual harassment and introduced additional protections for students accused of sexual misconduct.

The Louisiana decision has been celebrated by DeVos, who labeled Biden’s rule as an “anti-woman radical rewrite of Title IX” on social media.

Judges in at least six other cases are currently considering similar injunctions against Biden’s rule.

The outcome of these cases could significantly impact the implementation of the new protections and the broader interpretation of Title IX.

The Education Department has yet to respond to the injunction on LGBTQ+ protections, leaving the future of the rule uncertain.

Also Read: Supreme Court Rules on FDA Abortion Drug Approval Process