School's Gender Support Policy Did Not Violate Parent's Free Exercise or Due Process Rights

In Vitsaxaki v. Skaneateles Central School District, (ND NY, March 20, 2025), a New York federal district court rejected free exercise and due process challenges to a school district's policy of referring to students by their preferred names and pronouns without informing parents that the district is doing so.  The court said in part:

Mrs. Vitsaxaki asserts that her free exercise of religion was substantially burdened when she was unable to direct the upbringing and education of her child to “counteract” the school district’s implicit messaging that “people can change their sex.” ...

Mrs. Vitsaxaki asserts that the district’s actions taken pursuant to the Policy— permitting Doe to use a preferred names and pronouns and to receive school counseling regarding gender identity questions—were in direct contradiction of her religious views concerning gender and biological sex....

... [A] Policy that permits students to use preferred names and pronouns cannot be said to promote or endorse a religious message nor establish a particular religious practice.  Nor does Mrs. Vitsaxaki allege that it does.  Mrs. Vitsaxaki merely alleges that the choices available to students who choose to take advantage of the Policy runs afoul of her own religious beliefs....

... [T]he Court is satisfied that the Policy, which enables students to use their preferred name and/or pronouns is rationally related to the school district’s legitimate interest in promoting a safe learning environment for its students. ...

Rejecting plaintiff's claim that the school infringed her parental rights, the court said in part: 

... [W]ithin the Second Circuit, the scope of parental rights has been limited in the education context.  Most recently, ..., the Second Circuit held that “there is not a parental right, absent a violation of the Religion Clauses, to ‘direct how a public school teaches their child.’”  ...

... Mrs. Vitsaxaki’s verified complaint—and copies of the Policy...—describe a Policy that operates more like a civility code that extends the kind of decency students should expect at school: such as being called the name they ask to be called.  This strikes at the heart of the subject and manner of instruction a school district is entitled to implement for its students....

... Mrs. Vitsaxaki does not plausibly allege that the district diagnosed or treated Doe or that the district violated her right to make healthcare decisions on Doe’s behalf.   

Simply put, she remained free to exercise her parent rights at home.

Kentucky Legislature Authorizes Conversion Therapy for Minors

Last week, the Kentucky legislature gave final approval to House Bill 495 (full text) which invalidates Executive Order 2024-632 issued last year by Governor Andy Beshear.  The Executive Order contained a number of provisions to prevent the practice of conversion therapy on minors. HB 495 also prohibits the use of Medicaid funds for cross-sex hormones or gender reassignment surgery.  AP, reporting on the bill's passage, said in part:

The measure voted on Friday, and denounced by Beshear, cleared both chambers by veto-proof margins. Lawmakers will take up vetoes while wrapping up this year’s session in late March.

[Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Court Enjoins Implementation of Ban on Transgender Individuals Serving in the Military

In Talbott v. United States, (D DC, March 18, 2025), the United States federal district court for the District of Columbia issued a preliminary injunction barring the military from implementing Executive Orders and military memoranda that exclude transgender persons from serving in the military. The injunction requires the military to maintain the pre-Trump status quo on military service by transgender individuals. Explaining its decision, the court's 79-page opinion said in part:

The Court agrees that “courts [are] ill-equipped to determine the impact upon discipline that any particular intrusion upon military authority might have” and that “the military authorities [not courts] have been charged by the Executive and Legislative Branches with carrying out our Nation’s military policy.”... Often, courts accept “the reasoned, professional analysis of Congress and the Executive on matters strictly within the realm of military expertise.”...   

Defendants carry deference too far, however.  By “defer” they basically mean the Court must side with the military’s position, end-stop.  And they contend the Court must defer even if the judgment, as here, does not make sense....

The Court ... applies Bostock’s reasoning to analyze the Military Ban.  In doing so, it does not “import[] the Title VII test for liability,” ... into the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment.  Rather, it borrows Justice Gorsuch’s reasoning to conclude that transgender discrimination is a form of sex discrimination for purposes of the equal protection inquiry....

... [B]ecause the Military Ban targets transgender persons for disparate treatment, it creates an explicit sex-based classification that requires application of intermediate scrutiny. ...

The court also concluded that the Military Ban is subject to intermediate scrutiny because transgender persons should be considered a quasi-suspect class. The court went on:

Defendants have articulated important government objectives in military readiness, unit cohesion, and saving costs.  But the Fifth Amendment requires more than pointing to such “broadly formulated interests.”...  Defendants must show that the discriminatory Military Ban is in some way substantially related to the achievement of those objectives.  And they must do so without relying on “overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females.” ... They do not come close.  Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the Military Ban fails intermediate scrutiny review.....

The Military Ban is soaked in animus and dripping with pretext.  Its language is unabashedly demeaning, its policy stigmatizes transgender persons as inherently unfit, and its conclusions bear no relation to fact.  Thus, even if the Court analyzed the Military Ban under rational basis review, it would fail....

The Court could stop here in its analysis and comfortably conclude that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the Military Ban is motivated by animus and is not tailored to meet its stated goals.  But, as they say, there is more, for the Military Ban does not stand alone.  President Trump has signed an executive order recognizing the existence of only two sexes; blocked schools from using federal funds to promote the idea that gender can be fluid; directed the State Department to stop issuing documents that allow a third “X” gender marker; changed references to “LGBTQI+” on government websites to “LGB,” erasing not just transgender persons, but intersex people as well; revoked the ability of transgender federal employees to receive gender-affirming care; and directed that all incarcerated transgender persons be denied medical treatments and be housed by birth sex, where they are nine times more susceptible to violence....

NPR reports on the decision.

Wyoming Enacts Ban on Transgender Access to Multi-Occupancy Restrooms, Changing and Sleeping Areas

On March 3, Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon signed HB0072, "Protecting Privacy in Public Spaces Act" (full text). The new law requires that multi-occupancy restrooms, changing areas and sleeping quarters in public buildings and educational institutions be designated for use either by males or females. The Act defines males and females by their biological reproductive organs and prohibits them from entering facilities designated for the opposite sex. The Act contains a number of elaborate exceptions.  It also requires educational facilities to provide reasonable accommodations to persons unwilling or unable to use the facility designated for that person's biological sex. The Act provides a cause of action against the government facility involved for a person who encounters a person of the opposite sex in a restroom, changing or sleeping area. Cowboy State Daily reports on the new law.

Court Enjoins Cutoff of Funds to Institutions Offering Gender-Affirming Care to Minors

In PFLAG, Inc. v. Trump, (D MD, March 4, 2025), a Maryland federal district court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against enforcement of provisions in two Executive Orders that threaten to cut off federal funding to medical institutions that offer gender-affirming care to individuals under 19 years of age.  The court found that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on three claims, saying in part:

Because the Executive Orders direct agencies to withhold funding on a condition that Congress has not authorized, the President has exceeded his authority. The Plaintiffs have thus sufficiently shown likelihood of success on the merits of their ultra vires claim that the Executive Orders violate the separation of powers....

Plaintiffs accurately note that the Executive Orders foist upon hospitals receiving federal funds an impossible choice: (I) keep providing medical care to transgender patients under the age of nineteen in compliance with the anti-discrimination statutes and risk losing federal funding under the Executive Orders, or (2) stop providing care on the basis of trans gender identity in violation of the statutes, but in compliance with the EOs. Because the challenged portions of the Executive Orders are facially discriminatory on the basis of transgender identity, and therefore sex under Kadel and Bostock, in violation of Section 1557 of the ACA and Section 1908 of the PHSA, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their ultra vires statutory claim....

Guided and bound by Fourth Circuit's analysis in Kadel, and with a barer record than the one before the Fourth Circuit there, the Court is compelled to find that the Executive Orders' effective ban on all gender-affirming care for those under nineteen by federally funded institutions is not substantially related to the important government interest of protecting children. As such, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their Equal Protection claim....

Last month, the court issued a nation-wide temporary restraining order in the case. (See prior posting.)  ACLU issued a press release announcing yesterday's decision.

Iowa Governor Signs Law Ending Anti-Discrimination Protection for Transgender Individuals

On Feb. 28, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds signed Senate File 418 (full text) which removes "gender identity" as a protected class under the state's anti-discrimination laws. It also provides that in construing state statutes, a reference to "sex" means "the state of being either male or female as observed or clinically verified at birth." The law also bars issuance of a new birth certificate reflecting a sex change. In her signing statement (full text), Governor Reynolds said in part:

It is common sense to acknowledge the obvious biological differences between men and women. In fact, it is necessary to secure genuine equal protection for women and girls....

I know this is a sensitive issue for some, many of whom have heard misinformation about what this bill does. The truth is that it simply brings Iowa in line with the federal Civil Rights Code, as well as most states.

We all agree that every Iowan, without exception, deserves respect and dignity. We are all children of God, and no law changes that.

Iowa Public Radio reports on the bill.

Wyoming Passes Bill Barring State from Requiring Employees to Use Preferred Pronouns of Other Employees

The Wyoming legislature this week gave final approval to SF077 (full text) which provides in part:

The state and its political subdivisions shall not compel or require an employee to refer to another employee using that employee's preferred pronouns.

The Act allows  person aggrieved by a violation to seek injunctive or declaratory relief.

Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon allowed the bill to become law without his signature. In his No Signature Letter to Senate yesterday, Governor Gordon called the law "a solution in search of a problem."

Wyoming PBS has background on the bill.

Foster Parent Requirements for Affirming Transgender Children Are Upheld

Last week, a Vermont federal district court in a series of opinions in two cases focused on challenges to the state's rules on licensing of foster parents. The suits were brought by couples who objected on religious grounds to the state's requirement that they be willing to accept any child regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

In Antonucci v. Winters I, (D VT, Feb. 20, 2025), the foster care license of plaintiffs was withdrawn because of their inability to comply with the state's non-discrimination requirement that included a commitment to facilitate the social and medical transition of a hypothetical future foster child. Plaintiffs asserted that complying with the requirement would violate their Christian religious beliefs about gender and sexuality. They sued seeking a preliminary injunction, contending that the requirement violated their free speech and free exercise rights. The court denied the preliminary injunction, saying in part:

Plaintiffs argue that, in this case, the state’s interest is not compelling because there is national, and even global, disagreement about the propriety of medical transitioning....

Evaluating the efficacy or safety of a particular procedure is not within this Court’s purview.  The Court’s role is to determine whether the Rules and Policies enforced here, which pertain to medical and social transitioning as well as the use of gender-appropriate pronouns, serve a compelling state interest.  At this stage in the case, Defendants have submitted sufficient evidence of the benefits of those policies to satisfy that portion of the strict scrutiny test....

The Court ... finds, based upon the current record, that the Rules and Policies established and implemented by DCF and Defendants serve the compelling interest of protecting the health and welfare of LGBTQ youth, and are narrowly-tailored to necessarily address that interest....

In Antonucci v. Winters II, (D VT, Feb. 20, 2025), the court on qualified immunity grounds dismissed plaintiffs' claim for damages for free exercise and free speech violations. It allowed plaintiffs to proceed on claims for injunctive and declaratory relief. The court did not dismiss plaintiffs' retaliation or equal protection claims because defendants had not offered specific arguments that they were covered by qualified immunity.

In Wuoti v. Winters, (D VT, Feb. 20, 2025), two couples whose foster parent licenses were not renewed challenged the state's foster parent policy on free speech, freedom of association and free exercise grounds. The court denied their motion for a preliminary injunction, saying in part:

Plaintiffs argue that Defendants are compelling them to “speak the State’s views while prohibiting them from expressing their religious views.”...  Compliance with DCF Rules and Policies, however, is different from speech.  Defendants did not compel Plaintiffs to change their beliefs, or to make any statements that disavowed those beliefs.  Instead, Defendants were pursuing their mission of ensuring a welcoming, affirming, and safe home for each child....

Plaintiffs further argue that Defendants were compelling them to use preferred pronouns and to otherwise speak in ways that are contrary to their religious beliefs about gender and sexuality, while at the same time restricting them from expressing their own views on those issues.  The DCF Rules and Policies at issue, however, are based upon research and feedback regarding outcomes for LGBTQ youth.  The record does not establish that they are targeted at any religious viewpoint.  Indeed, the alleged restrictions are at most incidental to rules of conduct designed to promote healthy and affirming homes....

Nothing in the record indicates that Defendants are compelling Plaintiffs to associate with any specific person or group.  Plaintiffs protest that their license denials were based in part on their professed inability to associate with certain events, as in a pride parade.  When DCF raised the possibility of attending a gay pride parade, however, the suggestion was merely hypothetical.  Indeed, while Policy 76 suggests that staff “encourage” such activities, there is no requirement that foster families engage in them.  Nor are Defendants preventing Plaintiffs from associating with others who share their beliefs, as in attending church.  What foster parents may not do is require children in their care to engage in activities that are non-affirming....

Here, nothing on the face of DCF’s Rules and Policies targets religious practices or religious applicants....

... [T]he Court finds that Rules and Policies at issue are generally applicable, and that Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on their free exercise claim....

Plaintiffs are concerned about foster families whose religious beliefs are not consistent with DCF policies, DCF does not compel such families to change or reject their beliefs.  What it does require is the provision of an affirming environment for children who are, or who come to identify as, LGBTQ.  

Title VII Applies to Liberty University's Firing of Transgender Employee

In Zinski v. Liberty University, Inc., (WD VA, Feb. 21, 2025), a Virginia federal district court refused to dismiss a Title VII sex discrimination lawsuit against Liberty University brought by a former employee whose employment as an IT Apprentice was terminated because she underwent a male to female sex transition. In an extensively reasoned 70-page opinion, the court rejected several defenses asserted by the University. First the University contended that §§702 and 703 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act allow a religious employer to discriminate on the basis of transgender status when that is consistent with the employer’s religious belief. Those section allow a religious employer to discriminate "with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion." The court said in part:

Having determined that no source of law—from statutory text to legislative history to precedent—answers the question before us, the Court is left to weigh the imperfect arguments above, alongside the potential legal and social consequences of our decision. Drawing upon all of these considerations, we conclude that Sections 702 and 703 must be narrowly construed so as to permit discrimination only on the basis of an employee’s espoused religious belief or practice, such that religious employers have no license to discriminate on the basis of any other protected class. Where a religious employer discriminates on the basis of any other protected class in a but-for fashion, a statutory violation occurs, even if the decision was religiously motivated....

To decide that sex discrimination is acceptable so long as it is religiously motivated would allow employers to achieve all manner of discrimination under the banner of religion. So long as the religious institution can show that its view—despite directly implicating sex, race, or national origin—is a sincerely held religious belief, the religious institution would have free license to discriminate at will and evade the scrutiny of civil law. Not only would this subject potentially thousands of people to discrimination..., but it would supply religious institutions with a power not afforded to secular institutions, thereby generating favorites under the law and raising Establishment Clause questions....

The court also rejected the University's RFRA defense, concluding first that RFRA applies only to suits in which the government is a party. It added:

And even if Liberty were entitled to raise RFRA as a defense, we find that Title VII likely passes strict scrutiny....

On the record before us, enforcing this statute in Zinksi’s case merely requires Liberty to maintain an employee who has not followed the university’s Doctrinal Statement to the letter, i.e., an employee who has sinned. It does not require Liberty to change its belief, to endorse Zinksi’s behavior, or to allow Zinksi to spread a new message within the organization.... The minimal inroad on religious liberty here is easily justified by the exceedingly compelling governmental interest in eradicating sex discrimination in employment. Accordingly, we find that Liberty’s brief argument as to burden is insufficient to show substantial burden at this stage of litigation. Thus, strict scrutiny does not apply, and our analysis can come to an end.....

The court rejected the ministerial exception defense, saying in part that "nothing in the record suggests that Zinski was a minister." The court also rejected the University's freedom of expressive association claim, saying in part:

... [W]e must defer Liberty’s claim that it opposes transgender identification and seeks to avoid any promotion of transgender status as an appropriate form of behavior. However,... we cannot conclude that Zinksi’s presence at Liberty would “force the organization to send a message” that Liberty accepts transgender conduct as a “legitimate form of behavior.”... Zinksi is an IT employee who has limited to no interactions with students, has no role in influencing or promoting Liberty’s value system, and has no role in Liberty’s religious curriculum or programming. The only inference that we can draw for Liberty is that Liberty may be seen as a hypocrite for employing a transgender person when it opposes transgender identity; but the same could be said for Liberty’s employment of any other type of person who “sins” despite Liberty’s opposition to sin in general....

Finally, the court rejected the University's ecclesiastical abstention defense, saying in part:

Zinski’s complaint asks the Court to determine whether Title VII prohibits a religious institution from firing a transgender person, not whether a religious institution, like Liberty, has properly interpreted its religious doctrine when determining that a transgender person violates religious law and must be fired.

HHS Issues Guidance On Defining Gender-Based Terms

On Wednesday, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a release titled "Defining Sex: Guidance for Federal Agencies, External Partners, and the Public Implementing Executive Order 14168, Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government." (full text). The 1½ page memo says in part:

There are only two sexes, female and male, because there are only two types of gametes. An individual human is either female or male based on whether the person is of the sex characterized by a reproductive system with the biological function of producing eggs (ova) or sperm....

Recognizing the immutable and biological nature of sex is essential to ensure the protection of women’s health, safety, private spaces, sports, and opportunities. Restoring biological truth to the Federal government is critical to scientific inquiry, public safety, morale, and trust in government itself.

The Release goes on to define the terms "sex", "female", "male". "woman", "girl", "man", "boy", "mother", and "father",

ED's Title IX Rule Violates 1st Amendment

 In Carroll Independent School District v. U.S. Department of Education, (ND TX, Feb. 19, 2025), a Texas federal district court invalidated the Department of Education’s rule that interprets Title IX as prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The court had previously issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the rule against plaintiff school district.  The court now permanently vacates the Rule, finding, among other things, that it violates the First Amendment. The court said in part:

Because “misgendering” could, under this broad standard, constitute hostile environment harassment, teachers will “assume they should use subjective gender terms to avoid discipline under the Final Rule.”

As a consequence, recipients of Title IX funds, including teachers, are forced “to be an instrument for fostering public adherence to an ideological point of view [they] find[] unacceptable.”... The Final Rule functionally turns recipients of federal funds into federally commandeered censors of speech, forcing schools to require engagement in or, at a minimum, to prohibit certain kinds of speech, which in turn represses what has long been regarded as protected forms of expression and religious exercise.

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Court Issues TRO Barring Cutoff of Funds to Institutions Offering Gender-Affirming Care to Minors

In PFLAG, Inc. v. Trump, (D MD, Feb. 14, 2025), a Maryland federal district court set out its reasons for issuing a nation-wide temporary restraining order barring enforcement of the sections of two Executive Orders that prohibit federal funding for institutions that provide gender affirming care for patients under 19 years of age. At issue are provisions in Executive Order 14168, titled Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government and in Executive Order 14187, titled Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation. The court said in part:

Defendants admit in the very first line of their response in opposition to the motion for a TRO that the President "issued two Executive Orders directing agencies to take steps, as permitted by law, to condition certain federal grant funding on his policy preferences."23 ECF 55, at 3. This is a clear violation of the Constitution as "attempt[s] [by the Executive Branch] to place new conditions on federal funds [are] an improper attempt to wield Congress's exclusive spending power and is a violation of the Constitution's separation of powers principles."....

Because the challenged portions of the Executive Orders are facially discriminatory on the basis of transgender identity, and therefore sex under Kadel and Bostock, in violation of Section 1557 of the ACA and Section 1908 of the PHSA, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their ultra vires statutory claim....

Defendants assert that the challenged portions of the Executive Orders are based on the important government interest of "protecting the physical and emotional well-being of youth."...  Defendants assert that the Orders are substantially related to this important government interest because "[ e ]vidence. abounds that treatments covered by the Protecting Children EO 'are dangerous and ineffective."'... Though Defendants might well have support for this argument, the en banc Fourth Circuit in Kadel rejected a similar claim by noting that "those criticisms do not support the notion that gender-dysphoria treatments are ineffective so much as still developing."... Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their Equal Protection claim....

AP reports on the decision.

Parent May Proceed on Some Challenges to School's Policy on Transgender Students

In Landerer v. Dover Area School District, (MD PA, Feb. 13, 2025), a mother challenged a school board's policy Directive that prohibits parental notification without student consent when a student asks to socially transition and be called by a different name or pronouns. The court held that plaintiff lacked standing to obtain injunctive or declaratory relief because she had withdrawn her children from the Dover School District. The court also dismissed plaintiff's free exercise claim, saying in part:

... [T]he policy here is rationally related to the legitimate interest of protecting transgender students. Even though the policy is alleged by Plaintiff to impact or burden her religious beliefs, the Directive survives rational basis review.

The court however refused to dismiss plaintiff's claim that a teacher interfered with her right to direct the care (including medical and mental health care), custody and control of her child. It also refused to dismiss plaintiff's claim that she was denied procedural due process because the Directive failed to provide for notice to parents of their children's request to use a different name and pronoun. The court allowed plaintiff to proceed only against the school board and not against the individual defendants on these claims because of qualified immunity.

Kansas Governor Vetoes Bill Banning Medical and Surgical Treatment of Minors for Gender Dysphoria

 On Feb. 11, Kansas Governor Laura Kelly vetoed Senate Bill 63 which prohibited medical, hormonal or surgical treatment of minors for gender dysphoria. It provided for damage actions against doctors who violated the prohibitions and barred insurance policies from covering liability for such damages. State employees whose duties include care of children may not promote social transitioning. In her veto message (full text), Governor Kelly said in part:

Infringing on parental rights is not appropriate, nor is it a Kansas value. As I’ve said before, it is not the job of politicians to stand between a parent and a child who needs medical care of any kind. This legislation will also drive families, businesses, and health care workers out of our state, stifling our economy and exacerbating our workforce shortage issue.

Reporting on these developments, Kansas Reflector said in part:

Kelly, a Democrat, vetoed a similar bill last year, and Republicans failed to coordinate the necessary two-thirds majority to override the veto. House Speaker Dan Hawkins, a Wichita Republican, said in a statement Tuesday that House Republicans were ready to override this year’s veto.

UPDATE: On Feb. 18, the Kansas legislature overrode Governor Kelly's veto. 

Britain's Court of Appeals: Teacher Wrongfully Terminated for Personal Facebook Postings Reflecting Christian Beliefs on Sexuality

In Higgs v. Farmor's School, (EWCA, Feb. 12, 2025), Britain's Court of Appeal held that the dismissal of a teacher because of posts on her personal Facebook page reflecting her Christian-based objections to schools teaching children about same-sex marriage and gender fluidity constituted unlawful discrimination on the ground of religion or belief in violation of the Equality Act 2010. The court said in part:

The school sought to justify her dismissal on the basis that the posts in question were intemperately expressed and included insulting references to the promoters of gender fluidity and “the LGBT crowd” which were liable to damage the school’s reputation in the community: the posts had been reported by one parent and might be seen by others.  However, neither the language of the posts nor the risk of reputational damage were capable of justifying the Claimant’s dismissal in circumstances where she had not said anything of the kind at work or displayed any discriminatory attitudes in her treatment of pupils.

Lord Justice Falk filed a brief concurring opinion.

U.S. Reverses Position in Transgender Case Already Argued Before Supreme Court

Last December, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in United States v. Skrmetti. The case involves a challenge to a Tennessee statute prohibiting chemical, hormonal or surgical treatment of minors for gender dysphoria. The case began as a suit by a private party, but the United States then intervened and filed its own complaint challenging the constitutionality of the statute. After a decision by the 6th Circuit reversing a preliminary injunction against enforcement, both the United States and the private plaintiff filed petitions for certiorari. The Supreme Court granted review only in the United States' case. Now with a change of Administrations, the United States has changed its position and no longer challenges the Tennessee statute.  The United States on February 7 filed a letter (full text) with the Supreme Court, reading in part:

The Department has now determined that SB1 does not deny equal protection on account of sex or any other characteristic.  Accordingly, the new Administration would not have intervened to challenge SB1—let alone sought this Court’s review of the court of appeals’ decision reversing the preliminary injunction against SB1.

Nevertheless, the United States believes that the confluence of several factors counsels against seeking to dismiss its case in this Court.  The Court’s prompt resolution of the question presented will bear on many cases pending in the lower courts.  Since granting certiorari last June, the Court has received full briefing and heard oral argument, including from the private plaintiffs, who have participated in this Court as respondents supporting the United States at the merits stage and who remain adverse to the state respondents in a dispute that has not become moot.  Accordingly, the Court may resolve the question presented without either granting the private plaintiffs’ pending petition for a writ of certiorari, see L.W. v. Skrmetti, No. 23-466 (filed Nov. 1, 2023), or requesting further, likely duplicative briefing from the same parties about the same court of appeals judgment in the underlying suit between the private plaintiffs and the state respondents.

AP reports on the government's action.

ED "Dear Colleague" Letter Says Agency Will Not Enforce 2024 Rule Protecting Transgender Rights

Yesterday, the Acting Assistant Secretary of the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights issued a "Dear Colleague" letter (full text) to educators informing them that the Office of Civil Rights will enforce a 2020 version of Rules under Title IX governing responses to allegation of sexual harassment. Consistent with an Executive Order issued by President Trump mandating the removal of all rules and policies protecting transgender individuals, the letter rejects the version of Title IX rules adopted in 2024 by the Biden administration. Last month, a Kentucky federal district court invalidated the 2024 Title IX rules saying that they exceed the agency's authority, are vague and overbroad, and violate teachers' freedom of expression. (See prior posting.)

Trump Removes 2 EEOC Commissioners; New Acting Chair Says Agency Is Rolling Back Biden's "Gender Identity Agenda"

Federal News Network on Tuesday reported that President Donald Trump has removed two Democratic members of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. One of those removed was Charlotte Burrows, formerly the Chair of the Commission until President Trump designated a new Acting Chair last week. The other Commissioner removed was Jocelyn Samuels who served as Vice Chair of the Commission until removed by President Trump from that position last week. These removals appear to leave the Commission without a quorum necessary to act.

Meanwhile, in a press release issued Tuesday, the EEOC's new Acting Chair Andrea Lucas said that the agency is "rolling back the Biden administration’s gender identity agenda," and announced the removal of various references to transgender and non-binary gender markers in forms and publications. She pointed out however that she is unable unilaterally to remove provisions in strategic plans and enforcement guidance documents that relate to protection of transgender individuals because those documents were adopted by votes of the full Commission. The press release added, in part:

... Acting Chair Lucas has been vocal in her opposition to portions of EEOC’s harassment guidance that took the enforcement position that harassing conduct under Title VII includes “denial of access to a bathroom or other sex-segregated facility consistent with [an] individual’s gender identity;” and that harassing conduct includes “repeated and intentional use of a name or pronoun inconsistent with [an] individual’s known gender identity.”

Although Acting Chair Lucas currently cannot rescind portions of the agency’s harassment guidance that are inconsistent with Executive Order 14166, Acting Chair Lucas remains opposed to those portions of the guidance.

“Biology is not bigotry. Biological sex is real, and it matters,” Lucas said. “Sex is binary (male and female) and immutable. It is not harassment to acknowledge these truths—or to use language like pronouns that flow from these realities, even repeatedly.”

Executive Orders Call for Military Reinstatement of Vaccine Objectors, Military Exclusion of Transgender Individuals

Yesterday, President Trump issued an Executive Order titled Reinstating Service Members Discharged Under the Military's Covid-19 Vaccination Mandate (full text). The Order reads in part:

The vaccine mandate was an unfair, overbroad, and completely unnecessary burden on our service members.  Further, the military unjustly discharged those who refused the vaccine, regardless of the years of service given to our Nation, after failing to grant many of them an exemption that they should have received.  Federal Government redress of any wrongful dismissals is overdue.

The Executive Order calls for reinstatement with back pay for those who left the service rather than be vaccinated.  Many service members who refused vaccination did so on religious grounds.

Yesterday, the President also issued an Executive Order titled Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness (full text) which ordered the military to revise its Medical Standards for Military Service to exclude transgender individuals from service in the military. The Executive Order reads in part:

Consistent with the military mission and longstanding DoD policy, expressing a false “gender identity” divergent from an individual’s sex cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for military service.  Beyond the hormonal and surgical medical interventions involved, adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life.  A man’s assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member....

It is the policy of the United States Government to establish high standards for troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity.  This policy is inconsistent with the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals with gender dysphoria.  This policy is also inconsistent with shifting pronoun usage or use of pronouns that inaccurately reflect an individual’s sex.

7th Circuit Hears Arguments on Accommodating Teacher Who Objects to Using Students' Preferred Names and Pronouns

Yesterday the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Kluge v. Brownsburg Community School Corporation. (Audio of full oral arguments.) In the case, an Indiana federal district court dismissed an orchestra teacher's Title VII claim that the school had failed to reasonably accommodate his religious objections to referring to transgender students by their preferred names and pronouns. The district court agreed with the school's rejection of using only students' last names as an accommodation. (See prior posting.) ADF, the teacher's counsel, issued a press release ahead of yesterday's arguments.