On Friday, the Supreme Court declined the Biden administration’s request to temporarily enforce most aspects of an April 2024 rule under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education programs, pending the continuation of its appeals. The rule, aimed at expanding protections for transgender students, was blocked by federal appeals courts prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, leaving the lower courts’ orders in place for the time being.
The blocked provisions specifically targeted discrimination against transgender individuals in schools. These included recognizing that Title IX’s ban on sex discrimination encompasses gender identity, permitting transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms in accordance with their gender identity, and recognizing harassment based on gender identity as a form of hostile-environment harassment. The ruling follows challenges from ten states that argued the provisions could impose significant burdens on schools and infringe upon states’ rights.
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar had urged the justices to intervene, asserting that the 2024 rule encompasses a wide range of issues beyond those related to transgender discrimination. Prelogar contended that blocking the entire rule overly broadens the relief granted by the lower courts by impacting numerous provisions unrelated to the states’ specific challenges.
However, the justices, in a three-page unsigned opinion, concluded that the administration had not sufficiently demonstrated that the contested provisions could be separated from the rest of the rule or that a stay was justified. They also noted that the government had not adequately specified which provisions could remain effective independently. The appeals courts have fast-tracked the government’s challenge, with oral arguments scheduled for October.
Additional challenges to the rule are ongoing in states such as Texas, Kansas, Alabama, Oklahoma, and Missouri. For more details, the initial report on this ruling can be found here.