Trump Administration Asks Court For Time To Reconsider Enjoined HHS Ruling on Transgender Rights

As previously reported, in December a Texas federal district court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction barring enforcement of a regulation issued by the Obama administration under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender identity or termination of pregnancy in health care programs that receive federal financial assistance. Yesterday the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) filed a motion (full text) with the court asking that instead of moving ahead with briefing in the case, the court, while keeping its injunction in place, remand the matter to HHS for it to reconsider the rule.  The government argued in its motion that Trump Administration leadership should now "be given an opportunity to reevaluate the regulation and address the issues raised in this litigation."  Rewire reports on developments. This is one of a number of cases in the courts raising the question of whether civil rights laws that ban discrimination on the basis of "sex" cover discrimination on the basis of gender identity. (See prior posting.)

Trump Administration Withdraws Obama Title IX Transgender Guidance

Today the Trump Administration withdrew the controversial Obama Administration's Guidance on rights of transgender students under Title IX. In a Joint Letter (full text) from the Department of Justice and Department of Education, the Trump Administration formally took no position on whether Title IX protects transgender students.  The Letter reads in part:

These [Obama Administration] guidance documents take the position that the prohibitions on discrimination “on the basis of sex” in Title IX ... and its implementing regulations ... require access to sex-segregated facilities based on gender identity. These guidance documents do not, however, contain extensive legal analysis or explain how the position is consistent with the express language of Title IX, nor did they undergo any formal public process.

This interpretation has given rise to significant litigation regarding school restrooms and locker rooms....

In addition, the Departments believe that, in this context, there must be due regard for the primary role of the States and local school districts in establishing educational policy.

In these circumstances, the Department of Education and the Department of Justice have decided to withdraw and rescind the above-referenced guidance documents in order to further and more completely consider the legal issues involved. The Departments thus will not rely on the views expressed within them.

The Solicitor General's Office also sent a letter (full text) to the Supreme Court notifying it of the Guidance withdrawal.  Oral argument is scheduled March 28 in the Gloucester County School Board case involving the Obama Administration's interpretation of Title IX.  The Supreme Court specifically granted certiorari on two issues (see prior posting), only one of which would appear to be mooted by yesterday's action.  The two issues are:

... [S]hould deference extend to an unpublished agency letter that, among other things, does not carry the force of law and was adopted in the context of the very dispute in which deference is sought?

... With or without deference to the agency, should the Department’s specific interpretation of Title IX and 34 C.F.R. § 106.33 be given effect?

The New York Times reports that Education Secretary Betsy DeVos had opposed withdrawal of the Guidance that protected transgender students, but that the President sided with Attorney General Sessions.  The new Joint Letter does contain a paragraph expressing concern for student rights:

Please note that this withdrawal of these guidance documents does not leave students without protections from discrimination, bullying, or harassment. All schools must ensure that all students, including LGBT students, are able to learn and thrive in a safe environment. The Department of Education Office for Civil Rights will continue its duty under law to hear all claims of discrimination and will explore every appropriate opportunity to protect all students and to encourage civility in our classrooms. The Department of Education and the Department of Justice are committed to the application of Title IX and other federal laws to ensure such protection.

Both Attorney General Sessions and Secretary DeVos issued separate statements as well.  Sessions' statement (full text) reads in part:

The Department of Justice remains committed to the proper interpretation and enforcement of Title IX and to its protections for all students, including LGBTQ students, from discrimination, bullying, and harassment.

DeVos' statement (full text) reads in part:

I have dedicated my career to advocating for and fighting on behalf of students, and as Secretary of Education, I consider protecting all students, including LGBTQ students, not only a key priority for the Department, but for every school in America.

Today's Joint Letter only refers to the interpretation of Title IX.  It is unclear how this will affect the similar interpretation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  The EEOC has interpreted the reference to sex discrimination in Title VII to protect transgender employees. Indeed, a December 15, 2014 Memorandum (full text) from Attorney General Holder to U.S. Attorneys takes the same position on Title VII.

Trump Justice Department Withdraws Objections To Nationwide Injunction In Transgender Bathroom Case

As previously reported, last year a Texas federal district court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction barring the federal government from enforcing Guidelines interpreting Title IX as barring discrimination by schools on the basis of gender identity.  In particular the Guidelines took the position that transgender students must have access to restrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity. Subsequently the Obama administration asked the court for a partial stay that would limit the injunction, pending appeal, to the 13 states that were plaintiffs in the case.  As reported by AP, a hearing on that motion was to have been held Feb. 14.  However on Friday, the Justice Department withdrew the government's request for a partial stay, and indicated it was "currently considering how best to proceed in this appeal." (Full text of court filing.)

Last week, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals approved a similar nationwide injunction against President Trump's Executive Order barring travel from seven Muslim countries. (See prior posting.) In its unsuccessful motion for a stay (full text, see pg. 24), the Justice Department argued that a nationwide injunction was improper because it went beyond providing relief to the plaintiffs in the case.

Court Again Refuses To Narrow Injunction Against Title IX Transgender Guidelines

In State of Texas v. United States, (ND TX, Nov. 20, 2016), a Texas federal district court denied defendants' request for a partial stay of the court's previously issued nationwide preliminary injunction against enforcement of Department of Education Title IX Guidelines barring discrimination by schools on the basis of gender identity. This is the second time the court has refused to narrow its preliminary injunction. Defendants had sought removal of non-plaintiff states from the reach of the injunction. The court said in part:

The Court remains convinced that Plaintiffs, not Defendants, have shown a great likelihood of success on the merits of their claims....   The federal statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of “sex”—the scope and meaning of which Defendants claim now includes gender identity—were promulgated more than forty years ago.... The federal government did not articulate, much less enforce, the Guidelines’ interpretation of sex as including gender identity for nearly fifty years after Title VII was passed in 1964 and the Court views this delay as strong evidence that Defendants will suffer no irreparable injury if a stay is denied and enforcement of the Guidelines delayed until their legality is established.

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the decision.

Court Clarifies and Refuses To Narrow Injunction Against Federal Transgender Guidelines

As previously reported, in August a Texas federal district court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction preventing the federal government, particularly the Department of Education, from enforcing Guidelines issued earlier this year interpreting Title IX as barring discrimination by schools on the basis of gender identity. Now in State of Texas v. United States, (ND TX, Oct. 18, 2016), the court issued an opinion responding to a request for clarification and narrowing of the injunction.  The court refused to limit the injunction to the 13 states that are plaintiffs in the lawsuit, saying:

A nationwide injunction is necessary because the alleged violation extends nationwide.

The court also clarified that the injunction does not impact the EEOC's functions or activities other than preventing it from using the challenged Guidelines to argue that the definition of  "sex" as it relates to intimate facilities includes gender identity. The court ordered additional briefing by the parties on whether the Guidelines are enjoined in total or whether the principle of severability applies to them; whether the injunction impacts Title VII investigations when teachers or staff and students use the same bathrooms; and whether the injunction applies to activities of OSHA or the Department of Labor.  Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued a press release on the decision.

New California Law Requires Disclosure of Title IX Exemptions

As reported by The Advocate, last Friday California's Gov. Jerry Brown signed S.B. 1146 (full text) into law.  The new law requires religiously affiliated schools in California that have obtained an exemption from any of the anti-discrimination provisions of Title IX or California's Equity in Higher Education Act to publicly disclose that fact.  The federal Department of Education has granted exemptions nationwide to some 43 colleges and universities (6 in California) from non-discrimination requirements that conflict with the schools' religious tenets. These variously include bans on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, as well as on other grounds. California schools now must disclose this fact to students, faculty and applicants for admission in publications, student orientation and other specified ways. Information on exemptions must also be filed with California's Student Aid Commission.

Court Requires School To Allow Transgender 5th Grader To Use Bathrooms Matching Her Gender Identity

In Board of Education of Highland Local School District v. U.S. Department of Education, (SD OH, Sept. 26, 2016), an Ohio federal magistrate judge granted a preliminary injunction to a fifth grade transgender girl requiring her school to allow her to use the girls' restroom.  The court found that she was likely to succeed on her Title IX and equal protection claims, saying in part:

the Sixth Circuit, as well as several other courts of appeals, have held that sex-discrimination claims based on gender noncomformity are cognizable under Title IX’s close cousin, Title VII.

Finding that heightened scrutiny is called for on plaintiff's equal protection claim, the court said in part:

Amici from school districts in twenty states around the country ... provide further support for the Court’s conclusion that Highland cannot show that allowing a transgender girl to use the girls’ restroom would compromise anyone’s privacy interests. When they adopted inclusive policies permitting transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms that correspond with their gender identity, all of these school districts wrestled with the same privacy concerns that Highland now asserts.... The school administrators agreed that although some parents opposed the policies at the outset, no disruptions in restrooms had ensued nor were there any complaints about specific violations of privacy.

The court conversely denied the school's motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent federal agencies from enforcing their interpretation of Title IX.

Gay Student Sues Catholic High School That Barred His Bringing Same-Sex Date To Homecoming

Lance Sanderson, a former student at Memphis, Tennessee's Christian Brothers High School, filed suit in a Tennessee state court on Tuesday alleging that the private Catholic boy's school-- which receives federal funds-- violated Title IX when it prohibited him from bringing his same-sex date from another school to the school's Homecoming Dance.  NBC News reports that the suit seeks $1 million in damages for breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent training and a violation under Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments.  The Obama administration, and several courts, have recently concluded that Title IX is broad enough to include sexual orientation discrimination. IdentitiesMic has more details on the failed attempts by the school to work out a compromise with Sanderson, and its ultimate policy statement that technically would have allowed him to bring a same-sex date from his own school.

Court Issues Nationwide Injunction Preventing Enforcement of Title IX Guidance on Transgender Rights

In a decision handed down yesterday, a Texas federal district court issued a preliminary injunction applicable nationwide barring the federal government from enforcing Guidelines issued earlier this year interpreting Title IX as barring discrimination by schools on the basis of gender identity.  In particular the Guidelines took the position that transgender students must have access to restrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity.   (See prior posting.) In State of Texas v. United States, (ND TX, Aug. 21, 2016), a Texas federal district court in a suit brought by 13 states held that the Department of Education's Guidance incorrectly interpreted its regulation (34 CFR 106.33) on sex-segregated restrooms and locker rooms. The court said in part:

It cannot be disputed that the plain meaning of the term sex as used in § 106.33 when it was enacted by DOE following passage of Title IX meant the biological and anatomical differences between male and female students as determined at their birth.... Additionally, it cannot reasonably be disputed that DOE complied with Congressional intent when drawing the distinctions in § 106.33 based on the biological differences between male and female students....

The court held additionally:

The Guidelines are, in practice, legislative rules—not just interpretations or policy statements because they set clear legal standards.... As such, Defendants should have complied with the APA’s [Administrative Procedure Act's] notice and comment requirement. Permitting the definition of sex to be defined in this way would allow Defendants to “create de facto new regulation” by agency action without complying with the proper procedures.

ABC News reports on the decision.

2016 Republican Platform on School Choice and Title IX

Yesterday the Republican Party at its national convention adopted its 2016 Platform (full text).  This is the fifth in a series of posts that focus on Platform provisions dealing with moral values and religious liberty. Note that the excerpts continue after the jump. Here are portions of the sections titled Choice in Education, and Title IX:

We support options for learning, including home-schooling, career and technical education, private or parochial schools, magnet schools, charter schools, online learning, and early-college high schools. We especially support the innovative financing mechanisms that make options available to all children: education savings accounts (ESAs), vouchers, and tuition tax credits. Empowering families to access the learning environments that will best help their children to realize their full potential is one of the greatest civil rights challenges of our time. A young person’s ability to succeed in school must be based on his or her God-given talent and motivation, not an address, ZIP code, or economic status. We propose that the bulk of federal money through Title I for low-income children and through IDEA for children with special needs should follow the child to whatever school the family thinks will work best for them.....

In New Suit, 10 States Challenge Feds' Interpretation of Transgender Rights

Yesterday, Nebraska and nine other states filed suit against the federal government challenging interpretations of the anti-discrimination provisions of Title VII and Title IX by the Department of Justice, the Department of Education, OSHA and the EEOC.  Federal agencies have asserted that the ban on discrimination on the basis of "sex" includes a ban on discrimination based on gender identity. The complaint (full text) in State of Nebraska v. United States, (D NE, filed 7/8/2016) contends that these interpretations were adopted in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and various constitutional provisions.  Joining Nebraska in the lawsuit are Arkansas, Kansas, Michigan, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota and Wyoming. Omaha World-Herald reports on the lawsuit. In May, eleven other states filed a similar lawsuit in federal district court in Texas. (See prior posting.)

Ohio School District Sues Feds Over Accommodation For A Transgender Student

A lawsuit was filed today in federal district court by an Ohio school district challenging the Justice Department and Department of Education's interpretation of Title IX as it applies to transgender students.  Unlike the broad-ranging lawsuit filed last month by eleven states challenging the same interpretation, today's suit focuses on accommodation, inconsistent with the new federal guidelines, already made by one school for a transgender student. The student began transitioning from male to female identity between kindergarten and first grade. The school allows the student to use single use staff restrooms, and encourages others students in the class to do likewise. The student's legal custodian has complained, and the Department of Education has investigated and proposed that the school change its policy to allow the transgender student to use sex-specific facilities. The complaint (full text) in Board of Education of the Highland Local School District v. U.S. Department of Justice, (SD OH, file 6/10/2016), says:

Highland has acceded, and will continue to accede, to the requests of Student A’s legal custodian to respect Student A’s gender-identity choice by not interfering with Student A’s current gender expression. But Highland will not accede to requests that adversely impact the dignity, privacy, safety, well-being, or rights of other students.

If the government were to deny federal funding because of a violation of Title IX, this would cost the school district $1.12 million. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing or the lawsuit.

11 States Sue Feds Over Transgender Rights

Nine states and officials from two others filed suit yesterday against the federal government, challenging various interpretations of the anti-discrimination provisions of Title VII and Title IX by the Obama Administration. Various guidance documents, the most recent or which was issued earlier this month (see prior posting), take the position that the ban on "sex" discrimination found in existing laws encompass a ban on discrimination against transgender individuals. The complaint (full text) in State of Texas v. Untied States, (ND TX, filed 5/25/2016), citing the Administrative Procedure Act and other constitutional and statutory provisions, alleges:

Defendants have conspired to turn workplaces and educational settings across the country into laboratories for a massive social experiment, flouting the democratic process, and running roughshod over commonsense policies protecting children and basic privacy rights. Defendants’ rewriting of Title VII and Title IX is wholly incompatible with Congressional text. Absent action in Congress, the States, or local communities, Defendants cannot foist these radical changes on the nation.

New York Times reports on the lawsuit.

Lawsuit Challenges School's Accommodation of Transgender Rights and DOE's Rules

In the escalating war over transgender rights, a lawsuit was filed in federal district court in Illinois this week by a group of  high school students and their parents challenging an agreement between a Cook County school district and the Department of Education to permit a transgender student in one of the high schools access to girls' locker rooms. The suit also challenges the school district's policy of allowing students to use restrooms that correspond to their gender identity.

The 83-page complaint (full text) in Students and Parents for Privacy v. Department of Education, (ND IL, filed 5/4/2016), says that the school district was threatened with the loss of $6 million in federal funding if it did not agree to the arrangement. It alleges that the locker room agreement and restroom policy cause students to lose their constitutionally protected right of privacy by requiring them to have their partially or fully unclothed bodies exposed to persons of the opposite sex.  The complaint contends that this also violates students' right under Title IX to an education that is free from a hostile environment based on sex, and infringes parents' rights to control the upbringing and education of their children.

The suit also contends that the Department of Education acted contrary to law when it interpreted Title IX's reference to "sex" discrimination as including "gender identity." Chicago Tribune reported on the lawsuit.

Title IX Religious Organization Exemption Does Not Bar Retaliation Claim Against Catholic High School

In Goodman v. Archbishop Curley High School, Inc., (D MD, Feb. 26, 2016), a Maryland federal district court refused to dismiss a former high school librarian's Title IX retaliation claim against the Catholic high school from which she was fired.  Librarian Annette Goodman reported to the school's administration evidence that another faculty member was having a sexual affair with one of the school's students. The school fired Goodman claiming that she delayed too long reporting her concerns to the school. Goodman says the firing was an attempt to deflect attention from the school's indifference to sexual abuse.  The court rejected the school's claim that Title IX's religious organizations exemption requires dismissal of Goodman's lawsuit, saying in part:

The position of the Defendants ... is that Title IX’s religious organizations exemption bars any employment discrimination or retaliation claim against them if they define their actions as tenets of their religion. There is a noticeable lack of case authority supporting such a broad application of the religious exemption.

The court also rejected defendants' claims that their rights under the First Amendment and RFRA would be violated by allowing the suit to move forward.

Department of Education Will Publicize Religious Colleges That Have Obtained Title IX Exemptions

As previously reported, over the last two years the U.S. Department of Education has granted a number of religiously-controlled colleges an exemption from Title IX where full compliance would conflict with their religious tenets.  With the exemption, the schools may continue to receive federal funds even though they discriminate in various ways on the basis of marital status, sex outside of marriage, sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, or abortion. In a press release yesterday, Human Rights Campaign says that now the Department of Education has agreed to create a searchable database of educational institutions that have applied for and/or received such exemptions. HRC comments:

While the Department of Education has little discretion to deny these requests for exemptions, religiously controlled educational institutions should not be exempt from full transparency.

DOE Exemptions From Title IX For Religious Colleges Is Growing

Earlier this month, The Column reported that in the last 18 months, the Department of Education has granted waivers to 27 religious colleges and universities in 17 states from the Department's interpretation of Title IX that bars schools receiving federal funds from discriminating against transgender students.  (See prior related posting.) Nine other schools have exemption applications pending. A number of these schools have sought and received even broader exemptions from Title IX based on the school's religious tenets.  For example in February the Department of Education granted a broad waiver to Anderson University:

The University is exempt from these provisions to the extent that they prohibit discrimination on the basis of marital status, sex outside of marriage, sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, or abortion and compliance would conflict with the controlling organization’s religious tenets.

Christian advocacy groups are providing training and sample documents for schools to use in applying for exemptions. [Thanks to Religion Dispatches for the lead.]