In addition to the nationwide preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Department of Education's new Title IX rules on transgender discrimination (see prior posting), two other federal district court last week issued more geographically limited preliminary injunctions against enforcement of the same rules. In State of Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services, (MD FL, July 3, 2024), a Florida federal district court enjoined enforcement within Florida, saying in part:
HHS and the Final Rule interpret Title IX, and hence section 1557, to prohibit discrimination based on “gender identity.” 89 Fed. Reg. at 37,699 (45 C.F.R. § 92.101(a)(2)). The Final Rule is stillborn and a nullity if Title IX does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of “gender identity.” The Eleventh Circuit has spoken on this point, clearly: Title IX does not address discrimination on the basis of gender identity. Adams v. Sch. Bd. of St. John’s Cnty., 57 F. 4th 791, 812–15 (11th Cir. 2022) (en banc). Frankly, this ends the issue—the new Rule appears to be a dead letter in the Eleventh Circuit.
In State of Kansas v. U.S. Department of Education, (D KS, July 2, 2024), a Kansas federal district court issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the new rules in Kansas, Alaska, Utah and Wyoming, saying in part:
... [T]he purpose of Title IX was to protect “biological women from discrimination in education[;] [s]uch purpose makes it difficult to sincerely argue that, at the time of enactment, ‘discrimination on the basis of sex’ included gender identity, sex stereotypes, sexual orientation, or sex characteristics.”... The DoE’s reinterpretation of Title IX to place gender identity on equal footing with (or in some instances arguably stronger footing than) biological sex would subvert Congress’ goals of protecting biological women in education....
... [T]he court finds that the Final Rule involves issues of both vast economic and political significance and therefore involves a major question.... As such, Congress must have given the agency “clear statutory authorization” to promulgate such a Final Rule.....The court finds that Congress did not give such clear statutory authorization to the DoE....
... [T]he Final Rule violates the Spending Clause because it introduces conditions for spending that were not unambiguously clear in Title IX....
The court finds that Plaintiffs have shown that the Final Rule violates he First Amendment by chilling speech through vague and overbroad language.....
[T]he court finds that the Final Rule is arbitrary and capricious because it offers an implausible explanation for agency action, is a sharp departure from prior action without a reasonable explanation, and failed to consider important interests as discussed herein.
