Federal judge vacates Title IX overhaul in defeat for Biden administration

A federal court on Thursday invalidated the Biden administration’s ambitious overhaul of Title IX, handing the Democratic president a significant defeat on transgender rights as he prepares to leave office.

U.S. District Chief Judge Danny Reeves granted summary judgment to a five-state coalition challenging the Department of Education’s regulatory change of adding “gender identity” to Title IX, which bans sex discrimination in education.

The judge found that the department exceeded its statutory authority, violated the First Amendment of the Constitution and acted capriciously in approving the sweeping rewrite.

“As this Court and others have explained, expanding the meaning of ‘on the basis of sex’ to include ‘gender identity’ turns Title IX on its head,” said Judge Reeves, who was appointed to the U.S. District Court for Eastern Kentucky by President George W. Bush in 2001.

The ruling applies to the five states in the coalition — Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, Indiana and West Virginia — and nationwide.

“The district court ruling applies nationwide and to every part of the Biden Title IX rule, meaning the rule is completely invalidated, and the U.S. Department of Education is unable to enforce it — anywhere,” said the Alliance Defending Freedom, representing two intervenors in the case.

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti called the decision “a huge win.” He said, “President Biden’s radical Title IX rewrite is dead and common sense is ALIVE!”

“The court’s order is [a] resounding victory for the protection of girls’ privacy in locker rooms and showers, and for the freedom to speak biologically-accurate pronouns,” Mr. Skrmetti posted on X.

The Title IX redo went into effect in August, but 26 states obtained temporary injunctions blocking the measure from taking effect in their jurisdictions pending the outcome of the litigation.

Judge Reeves’ decision, the first to rule on the merits of the case, was hailed by the Alliance Defending Freedom as a “colossal win for women and girls across the country.”

“The Biden administration’s radical attempt to redefine sex not only tossed fairness, safety, and privacy for female students out the window, it also threatened free speech and parental rights,” said Kristen Waggoner, ADF’s president and CEO. “With this ruling, the federal court in Kentucky rejected the entire Biden rule and the administration’s illegal actions.”

Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments has been widely credited with increasing opportunities for women and girls in education, employment and athletics by prohibiting sex discrimination at academic institutions that receive federal funding.

The department said that expanding Title IX to include males identifying as female was intended to “promote educational equity and opportunity for students across the country as well as accountability and fairness,” but critics saw it as a slap in the face.

The updated regulations were denounced as a threat to girls’ and women’s safety, privacy and opportunities by giving male-born students access to sex-specific locker rooms, restrooms, programs and athletics.

The Biden administration insisted that the rule did not apply to sports and introduced a separate proposal that would have barred blanket bans on transgender students in female athletics. The proposed rule was withdrawn last month.

Although the administration did not say immediately whether it plans to appeal the decision, the timing is problematic.

President-elect Donald Trump, who has vowed to “terminate” the Title IX redo, will be sworn in on Jan. 20. This means the new administration will probably withdraw any appeal filed before then.

“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 next week,” said Mr. Skrmetti.

The department defended the overhaul by citing the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which upheld the rights of transgender employees in the workplace under Title VII.

Judge Reeves called the administration’s reasoning “arbitrary and capricious.”

“The Department does not provide a reasoned explanation for departing from its longstanding interpretation of Title IX,” he said in the 15-page ruling. “Although it relies primarily on Bostock, the Supreme Court was clear that the decision was limited to the context of Title VII and did not purport to address ‘bathrooms, locker rooms, or anything else of the kind.’”

He noted that the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals “has repeatedly acknowledged the limited nature of Bostock’s holding.”

“Given the Court’s express disclaimer and the striking differences between Title VII and Title IX, Bostock is a very shaky place for the Department to hang its hat,” said Judge Reeves.

He said Title IX recognizes sex differences. He noted that it includes carve-outs for sex-segregated dormitories and bathrooms, boys’ and girls’ conferences, and sex-separated fraternities and sororities.

“[T]he 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,” said the judge.

He concluded that the updated rule violates the First Amendment by requiring teachers, students and staff to use preferred opposite-sex pronouns even if they object.

Tyler Coward, lead counsel at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, applauded the judge’s decision.

“As expected, courts have continued to find it impossible to justify the Biden administration’s changes to Title IX rules eviscerating students’ speech and due process rights,” he said. “With the 2020 rules now back in effect nationwide, schools will be required to restore procedures that respect the rights of all students.”