Suit Challenges Federal Agency Rule Changes Protecting Against Gender Identity Discrimination

Suit was filed last week in a Louisiana federal district court challenging rule changes interpreting five federal statutes. Defendants are HHS, Department of Agriculture, EEOC and the Department of Justice. The rule changes define sex discrimination and sexual harassment as including discrimination or harassment on the basis of gender identity and define gender dysphoria as a disability. The complaint (full text) in Rapides Parish School Board v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (WD LA, filed 1/17/2025), contends that the rule provisions are not authorized by the various statutes being implemented, are arbitrary and capricious and violate the Spending Clause of the Constitution. It also alleges that various of the rule provisions compel speech in violation of the First Amendment and are unconstitutionally vague. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Christian Employers Sue EEOC Over Transgender Rights and Abortion Mandate

Suit was filed yesterday in a North Dakota federal district court challenging two EEOC actions. The complaint (full text) in Christian Employers Alliance v. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (D ND, filed 1/15/2025) alleges in part:

First, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has improperly applied Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to force employers to affirm and accommodate employees’ gender-transition efforts.... This mandate, published in agency “guidance” and on its website, threatens employers with large penalties if they do not use employees’ self-selected pronouns based on gender identity, and if they do not allow males to access female single-sex restrooms, locker rooms, and lactation rooms.

Second, EEOC issued a final rule that twists the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA).... , a statute intended to protect pregnant mothers in the workplace, to impose a nationwide abortion mandate forcing employers to promote and facilitate elective abortion....

The suit alleges that these mandates from the EEOC violate the free exercise and free speech rights of members of the Christian Employers Alliance.

Court Invalidates New Title IX Rules That Protected Transgender Students

In State of Tennessee v. Cardona, (ED KY, Jan. 9, 2025), a Kentucky federal district court issued a vacatur order invalidating rules under Title IX adopted by the Department of Education last April. Plaintiffs challenged provisions that extended sex discrimination bans to discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The court said in part:

Because the Final Rule and its corresponding regulations exceed the Department’s authority under Title IX, violate the Constitution, and are the result of arbitrary and capricious agency action, the plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment will be granted....

... [T]he Final Rule’s definitions of sex discrimination and sex-based harassment, combined with the de minimis harm standard, require Title IX recipients, including teachers, to use names and pronouns associated with a student’s asserted gender identity....

The plaintiffs reasonably fear that teachers’ (and others’) speech concerning gender issues or their failure to use gender-identity-based pronouns would constitute harassment under the Final Rule.  Put simply, the First Amendment does not permit the government to chill speech or compel affirmance of a belief with which the speaker disagrees in this manner....

The Final Rule also is vague and overbroad. ....

... [A] vacatur order “takes the unlawful agency action ‘off the books’”—“an entirely appropriate response when a plaintiff successfully establishes that the agency’s conduct violates the law.”...  Vacatur operates on the rule itself and prevents the rule’s “application to all who would otherwise be subject to its operation.” ... See Kentucky, 728 F. Supp. 3d at 522 (quoting East Bay 

Although the Court has discretion to craft a different remedy, there is no reason to do so here.

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Challenges to School Policy on Disclosure of Gender Identity Change May Move Ahead

In Mirabelli v. Olson, (SD CA, Jan. 7, 2025), a California federal district court denied motions to dismiss a suit brought by teachers and parents challenging a policy of the state board of education that schools are not to disclose a student's announced change of gender identity to the student's parents without the student's consent. The policy is intended to protect student privacy.  Among other challenges, plaintiffs claimed that the policy violates their 1st Amendment free exercise and free speech rights. The court said in part:

According to the Complaint, the policies force parents to accede to a school’s plan to neither acknowledge nor disclose information about their child’s gender dysphoria.  By concealing a child’s gender health issues from the parents, parents are precluded from exercising their religious obligations to raise and care for their child at a time when it may be highly significant, because they are kept uninformed of the need for their child’s religious guidance.  “....

... Teachers do not completely forfeit their First Amendment rights in exchange for public school employment.  To the extent that teachers allege (as they do here) that EUSD has hired their speech to speak falsely or deceptively to parents of students, the teachers make out a plausible claim for relief under the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause.  Likewise, to the extent teachers allege (as they do here) that EUSD’s curriculum includes what the teachers sincerely believe to be lies and deceptions for communications with school parents and that such prevarications are religiously or morally offensive, the teachers make out a plausible claim for relief under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause.  EUSD contends that it is not a lie to not answer a question.  That the teachers sincerely held religious beliefs to the contrary cannot be simply dismissed....

There are no controlling decisions that would compel this Court to limit or infringe parental rights, notwithstanding the State’s laudable goals of protecting children.  This Court concludes that, in a collision of rights as between parents and child, the long-recognized federal constitutional rights of parents must eclipse the state rights of the child.  Therefore, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have stated plausible claims upon which relief can be granted and the motions to dismiss are denied.

ED Withdraws Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Transgender Students on Sports Teams

In a Notice (full text) to be published in the Federal Register on Dec. 26, the Department of Education withdrew a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking under Title IX on Sex-Related Eligibility Criteria for Male and Female Athletic Teams. The Rulemaking Notice was originally published 17 months ago. The proposed rule would have provided that criteria preventing a transgender student from participating on a team consistent with the student's gender identity would need to be substantially related to an important educational objective, and would need to minimize harms to the affected transgender students, The Department received more than 150,000 comments on the Proposed Rule during the 30-day comment period. In withdrawing the rule, DOE said:

In light of the comments received and ... various pending court cases, the Department has determined not to regulate on this issue at this time.

Ohio Legislature Passes Bill Requiring Released Time Programs and Providing Parents' Bill of Rights

On Dec. 18, the Ohio legislature gave final approval to House Bill 8 (full text) which includes a Parents' Bill of Rights and a provision requiring school boards to adopt a released time program, defined as "a period of time during which a student is excused from school to attend a course in religious instruction conducted by a private entity off school district property." Ohio law has previously made released time programs permissible rather than mandatory. The bill also adds a provision requiring schools to cooperate with sponsoring entities to identify a time during the school day for released time programs.

The parental rights portions of the bill include provisions requiring that parents be given the opportunity to review any instructional material that includes sexuality content. No sexuality instruction is permitted before 4th grade.  The bill also requires notification to parents of changes in counseling services provided to their children, including any request by a student to identify as a gender that does not align with the student's biological sex. Numerous provisions call for parental involvement in other health care services provided by schools to their children. Once the legislature forwards the bill to the governor, he will have 10 days to sign or veto the bill. Ohio Capital Journal reports on the bill. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Montana Supreme Court Upholds Preliminary Injunction Against Ban on Gender Affirming Care for Minors

In Cross v. State of Montana, (MT Sup. Ct., Dec. 11, 2024), the Montana Supreme Court upheld a trial court's preliminary injunction against enforcement of Montana's ban on medical or surgical treatment of minors for gender dysphoria.  The court said in part:

 ¶37 The statute’s impact on individual privacy rights triggers strict scrutiny review, which requires the State to demonstrate that “the legislation [is] justified by a compelling state interest and [is] narrowly tailored to effectuate only that compelling interest.” ...  Though the State has a compelling interest in “safeguarding the physical and psychological wellbeing of a minor,” a statute implicating their privacy rights must be narrowly tailored to serve that interest....  SB 99 affords no room for decision-making by a patient in consultation with their doctors and parents.  The statute is a complete ban, prohibiting individualized care tailored to the needs of each patient based on the exercise of professional medical judgment and informed consent.  

¶38 At this stage of the proceedings, the District Court conscientiously weighed the parties’ evidence.... Our role is not to reweigh conflicting evidence or to question a district court’s assessment of the strength of the evidence on a preliminary injunction appeal....

Justice McKinnon, joined by Justice Gustafson, filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

I write separately because I believe Plaintiffs’ equal protection claim should likewise be addressed by the Court.

Justice Rice dissented in part, saying in part:

¶68 I concur with the Court’s holding affirming the District Court’s entry of a preliminary injunction enjoining SB 99’s medical restrictions.  A legislative prohibition of an approved medical procedure must satisfy the high bar of being narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest in addressing a bona fide health risk....

 ¶69 However, it should also be noted that both the medical and legal grounds regarding the subject treatment of minors addressed by SB 99 are moving under our feet, and the status quo itself is becoming a moving target, even as this litigation continues....

¶70 I would reverse the District Court’s enjoinder of the funding prohibition of SB 99...

Daily Montanan reports on the decision.

Supreme Court Denies Cert. In Dispute Over Standing to Challenge School Gender Identity Support Policy

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in Parents Protecting Our Children, UA v. Eau Claire Area School District, Wisconsin, (Sup. Ct., certiorari denied 12/9/2024). In the case, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a parents' organization lacked standing to challenge a school district's policy on Gender Identity Support for students. The Supreme Court denied certiorari over the dissents of Justices Kavanaugh, Alito and Thomas.  In a dissenting opinion written by Justice Alito and joined by Justice Thomas. Justice Alito said in part:

This case presents a question of great and growing national importance: whether a public school district violates parents’ “fundamental constitutional right to make decisions concerning the rearing of ” their children ... when, without parental knowledge or consent, it encourages a student to transition to a new gender or assists in that process. We are told that more than 1,000 districts have adopted such policies....

I am concerned that some federal courts are succumbing to the temptation to use the doctrine of Article III standing as a way of avoiding some particularly contentious constitutional questions....

Advocate reports on the Court's action.

2nd Circuit: Lawyers Have Standing to Challenge Bar Rule That Limits Comments on Transgender and Religious Subject Matter

In Cerame v. Slack, (2d Cir., Dec. 9, 2024), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that two Connecticut lawyers have standing to bring a pre-enforcement challenge to a state Rule of Professional Conduct which prohibits lawyers from engaging in harassing or discriminatory conduct against members of various protected classes in the practice of law. It bars harassment or discrimination on the basis of  race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status. Commentary to the Rule defines discrimination as including harmful verbal conduct directed at an individual that manifests bias or prejudice. The attorneys allege that they often speak out on legal blogs, in articles and legal seminars in ways that could be construed as personally derogatory.  According to the court:

Moynahan and Cerame ... allege... that “[t]here are numerous examples of speech” fully protected by the First Amendment that members of the Connecticut bar will be reluctant to engage in, given the fear of a misconduct complaint...."  These include using “the pronoun associated with a transgender individual’s biological sex when addressing that individual”; using the term “‘gender preference’ rather than ‘gender orientation’”;  ... and publishing cartoons that “satiri[ze] or mock[]” “a religious deity”..... 

Appellees argue that the commentary to Rule 8.4, providing that an attorney “does not violate paragraph (7) when the conduct in question is protected under the first amendment to the United States constitution,”  ...“unambiguously shows that the Rule does not proscribe protected speech”....

Although the First Amendment carve-out may make it more likely that the SGC will conclude that some speech that would otherwise fall within the text of Rule 8.4(7) is not in fact proscribed, the carve-out is not enough, on its own, to render Appellants’ fear of a misconduct complaint and its professional repercussions “imaginary or wholly speculative” for Article III purposes...

At this stage in the proceedings, Appellants have alleged plausibly that they intend to engage in speech proscribed, at least arguably, by a recently enacted, focused regulation.  This gives rise to a credible threat of enforcement.

Reuters reports on the decision.

Supreme Court Will Hear Arguments Today on Tennesse Ban of Gender Affirming Medical Treatment for Minors

The U.S. Supreme Court this morning will hear oral arguments in United States v. Skrmetti. The case involves a challenge to Tennessee's ban on chemical, hormonal and surgical treatments of minors for gender dysphoria. In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Equal Protection and Due Process challenges to the law. A central issue in today's arguments will be whether transgender classifications trigger heightened scrutiny. SCOTUSblog has an extensive discussion of the issues in the case. More than 80 amicus briefs have been filed in the case. Links to all of them and additional pleadings in the case are available at the SCOTUSblog case page for the case.

Oral arguments will be streamed live at this link beginning at 10:00 AM. Argument audio will be archived at this link. A written transcript of the oral arguments will be available later today at this link.

Ohio Governor Signs Transgender Bathroom Bill

AP reports that that on Tuesday Ohio Governor Mike DeWine signed Senate Bill 104, the Protect All Students Act (full text of bill). The Act requires public and most private elementary and secondary schools as well as all public and private colleges and universities to designate multiple occupancy restrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms and shower rooms for use either by the male biological sex or the female biological sex. No school may have a multi-occupancy facility designated as open to all genders, nor may a school permit a member of the female biological sex to share overnight accommodations with members of the male biological sex. Transgender individuals may use single occupancy restrooms or faculty restrooms.  According to AP, DeWine signed the bill out of public view and issued no statement regarding the signing.

Missouri Trial Court Upholds State's Ban on Gender Affirming Care for Minors

In Noe v. Parson, (MO Cir. Ct., Nov. 25, 2024), a Missouri state trial court upheld the constitutionality of Missouri's ban on gender transition surgery for minors and its 4-year moratorium on puberty-blocking drugs and cross-sex hormones for minors for the purpose of treating gender dysphoria. It also upheld the state's ban on the use of state Medicaid funds for gender transition procedures.  The decision, reflected in a 74-page opinion setting out extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law, comes in a facial challenge to Missouri's Save Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) Act. The court said in part:

This Court finds an almost total lack of consensus as to the medical ethics of adolescent gender dysphoria treatment....

Furthermore, the credible evidence shows that a vast majority of children who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria outgrow the condition....

Critically, Plaintiffs made the strategic decision to bring a facial challenge to the entirety of several provisions, meaning they must establish that "no set of circumstances exists under which the [provisions] would be valid."... They chose not to seek an as-applied exception, a carve-out exception, to the regulation. The Constitution does not permit a single judge to nullify the results of democratically enacted legislation where, as here, there is a medical dispute about the safety or efficacy of those interventions....

There is nothing arbitrary or irrational ... about putting in place a 4-year pause on interventions that medical authorities across the world have said lack any substantial evidentiary support....

Lambda Legal and ACLU of Missouri said they will appeal the decision. Missouri Independent reports on the decision.

Certiorari Denied in Challenge To West Virginia's Ban on Transgender Girls on Girls' Sports Teams

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday denied review in West Virginia Secondary School Activities Commission v. B. P. J., (Docket No. 24-44, certiorari denied 11/18/2024). (Order List.)  In the case the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that the West Virginia Save Women's Sports Act violates Title IX on the facts of the case before it and remanded for further findings on whether the Act as applied to transgender girls violates the Equal Protection Clause.

UPDATE: The certiorari petition which the Court acted on here only raised the question of whether the Secondary School Activities Commission is a state actor. A cert. petition raising the Title IX and Equal Protection issues is still pending before the Court.

7th Circuit Vacates Injunction Against Indiana's Ban on Gender Transition Treatment for Minors

In K.C. v. Individual Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana, (7th Cir., Nov. 13, 2024), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision reversed a federal district court's preliminary injunction against Indiana's ban on non-surgical gender transition procedures for minors. Rejecting the district court's conclusion that the treatment ban violates the Equal Protection Clause, the 7th Circuit majority held that the law need only meet the rational basis test. The court said in part:

The only way SEA 480 implicates sex at all is that the medical treatment at issue is sex specific—it denies each sex access to the other’s hormones. A physician could, if not for SEA 480, prescribe two medical treatments: one exclusively to girls with gender dysphoria—testosterone; and one exclusively to boys with gender dysphoria—estrogen.....

When a state regulates a “medical procedure that only one sex can undergo,” the courts apply rational-basis review “unless the regulation is a ‘mere pretex[t] designed to effect an invidious discrimination against members of one sex or the other.’”...

Bostock does not apply to every use of the word “sex” in American statutory and constitutional law. The case decided an interpretive question about Title VII’s reach. Title VII does not apply here, so neither does Bostock.

The majority also rejected the claim that the Indiana law violates the Due Process right of parents to make medical decisions for their children because it does not carve out an exception for treatment when a parent consents. The majority said in part:

SEA 480 is supported by a rational basis.... [P]rotecting minor children from being subjected to a novel and uncertain medical treatment is a legitimate end. And if Indiana had included a parental-consent provision, the exception would swallow the rule...

Finally the majority rejected the claim that the statute's ban on aiding and abetting violates physicians' free speech rights, saying in part:

... [W]hen the physicians and the state do not see eye-to-eye on treatment—and when the state validly regulates that treatment—the state must be able to preclude its physicians from using their authority to help the state’s citizens access the treatment. Otherwise, the physicians would hold a veto over the state’s power to protect its citizens. SEA 480’s secondary liability provision covers unprotected speech, and it reasonably relates to its primary liability provision, which itself is a reasonable regulation.

Judge Jackson-Akiwumi filed a dissenting opinion focusing primarily on the ban on Indiana physicians assisting minors in obtaining treatment in other states, saying in part:

The majority opinion holds that, insofar as the aiding and abetting provision regulates speech, it reaches only unprotected speech—either speech integral to unlawful conduct or speech incidental to regulated conduct. Our law, however, defies both conclusions....

So, Indiana can realize its objectives by enacting a law and punishing those who violate it; it cannot accomplish its objectives by punishing speech that somehow relates to the purpose of a state law, yet amounts to no criminal or civil primary violation.

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

6th Circuit Grants En Banc Rehearing in Challenge to School's Ban on Misgendering Fellow Students

In Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District, (6th Cir., Nov. 1, 2024), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc vacated a decision issued in July by a 3-judge panel (see prior posting) and granted a rehearing en banc in a free speech challenge to a school district's anti-bullying and anti-harassment policies. At issue are policies that prohibit students from using pronouns that are inconsistent with another student’s gender identity if the use amounts to harassment. In a 2-1 decision in July, the panel rejected the challenge saying in part that "[T]he District’s position that students may communicate their belief that sex is immutable through means other than the use of nonpreferred pronouns, indicate that the District is not attempting to prohibit any viewpoints."

George Mason Law Students Sue Claiming "No-Contact" Order Violates Their Free Speech and Free Exercise Rights

Suit was filed last week in a Virginia federal district court by two Christian female law students at George Mason University contending that a "no-contact" order issued against them by the University's DEI Office violates their free speech and free exercise rights. The complaint (full text) in Ceranksoky v. Washington, (ED VA, filed 11/1,2024), relates that plaintiffs were ordered to avoid contact, including through social media, with a classmate (identified in the complaint only as Mr. Doe) who is the Law School's representative on the Graduate and Professional Studies Assembly. Through an online chat platform, Mr. Doe proposed having hygiene products available in men's rest rooms as well as in women's in order to accommodate transgender men. According to the complaint:

5. [Plaintiff posted] ... her concern that if GMU adopted a policy “allow[ing] biological females into male restrooms to access period products as ‘trans men,’” then that would mean “female bathrooms will welcome male occupants.” She asked her classmate to “recognize the concerns of biological female students” and how they would feel “considerably uncomfortable if there are males using private women’s spaces on campus.” She noted that “[w]omen have a right to feel safe in spaces where they disrobe.” ...

7. Their classmate, who had claimed to be their representative to the student government and initially promised to “advocate for all” students and viewpoints, responded by mocking their concerns and labeling their views as bigoted for questioning others’ gender identity. 

8. Two weeks later ... [plaintiffs] received no-contact orders from GMU’s Office of Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion (“DEI Office”), prohibiting them from having any contact with their classmate....

152....  Defendants have singled out Plaintiffs’ expression and prevented them from engaging in religious expression with Mr. Doe.

153. Defendants’ no-contact orders have also chilled Plaintiffs from engaging in religious expression with other students at the Law School or the rest of GMU....

175.  Plaintiffs are motivated by their sincerely held religious beliefs to speak on-campus on many topics from a Christian worldview. Plaintiffs believe their on-campus speech is a way to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with non-Christians and a way to disciple and equip other Christians on campus to grow and mature in their faith.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

6th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments in Transgender Bathroom Access Case

On Tuesday, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (audio of full oral arguments) in Doe No. 1 v. Bethel Local Board of Education, (6th Cir., Docket No. 23-3740). In the case, an Ohio federal district court (see prior posting) dismissed a wide-ranging group of challenges-- including due process, equal protection and free exercise challenges-- to a school board policy allowing students to use school bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity. Ohio Capital Journal reports on the oral arguments.

6th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments on DOE's Interpretation of Title IX to Include Gender Identity Discrimination

Yesterday the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (audio of full oral arguments) in State of Tennessee v. Cardona. In the case, a Kentucky federal district court barred enforcement against Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, and West Virginia of the Department of Education's rules that interpret Title IX's ban on sex discrimination to include discrimination against transgender students and faculty by institutions receiving federal financial assistance. Bloomberg Law reports on the oral arguments.

Volunteer Prison Minister's Challenge to Requirements for Addressing LGBTQ Inmates Is Rejected

In Kuenzi v. Reese, (D OR, Oct. 28, 2024), an Oregon federal district court rejected 1st Amendment challenges to an Oregon prison system rule requiring volunteers in prison facilities to sign an acknowledgement statement that calls for volunteers to use appropriate gender pronouns when addressing transgender, intersex and non-binary adults in custody.  Plaintiff, a former volunteer Christian minister in a women's correctional facility, contends that this requirement conflicts with her free exercise and free speech rights. She is no longer allowed to minister at the prison facility without signing the statement which conflicts with her religious belief that gender is an immutable characteristic determined by biology, and that homosexual conduct is sinful. The court concluded that the prison policy is neutral and generally applicable and that:

... the policy is rationally related to ODOC’s legitimate interest in “promot[ing] a respectful environment that reinforces prosocial norms for ODOC’s AICs.” 

It also concluded that:

Because Plaintiff was speaking as an employee and not as a private citizen, her speech falls outside the protections of the First Amendment.

Suit Challenges HIPPA Rules Barring Reporting of Out-of-State Abortions

As previously reported, in April of this year the Department of Health and Human Services issued new privacy rules under HIPPA designed to protect women (and those who assist them) who travel out of state for an abortion that is not legal in their state of residence. Yesterday, suit was filed in a Texas federal district court challenging the rules.  The complaint (full text) in Purl v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (ND TX, filed 10/21/2024), alleges that the new privacy rules cover not only abortion, but also hormone and drug interventions for gender dysphoria and surgical procedures on an individual's reproductive system. The complaint alleges in part:

5. ... [T]he 2024 Rule purports to limit the circumstances when a HIPAA-covered entity can share information with government agencies, such as state child-welfare agencies and law enforcement agencies, both state and federal.  

6. HIPAA-covered entities that share information in contravention of HHS’s regulations incur criminal liability. 

7. Yet the HIPAA statute explicitly preserves government authority to investigate and to require disclosures concerning abuse. 

8. The 2024 Rule lacks statutory authority and is arbitrary and capricious. As such, the Court should vacate and set aside the Rule and preliminarily and permanently enjoin its enforcement....

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.