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.

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.

Suit Over Deceptively Promoted School Religious Program Moves Ahead

In Roe v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board, (MD LA, Oct. 8, 2024), a Louisiana federal district court refused to dismiss many claims brought by high school seniors and their parents asserting violations of the Establishment Clause, infringement of parental rights, sex discrimination, violation of the Louisiana Parents Bill of Rights, negligence, infliction of emotional distress and fraud. According to the court:

Plaintiffs’ lawsuit centers around the overarching allegation that, “[f]or several years going back to at least 2016, [defendants] ... were engaged in a conspiracy to expose public school children to overtly sectarian and religious experiences directly through the East Baton Rouge School System..., often without the knowledge or permission of the students’ parents or guardians.” [They] ...developed a program called ‘Day of Hope’, whereby public school students of the East Baton Rouge School System would be sent to a religious service during school time, chaperoned by EBRSB employees.” ... [Defendants] advertised the 2022 event to parents and students as a ‘College and Career Fair’, providing ‘a college and career fair, breakout sessions, live music, a keynote speaker, free food, and more.’ None of the promotional materials or advertisements for the event provided any obvious religious connection.” Plaintiffs claim that, “[i]n actuality, ‘Day of Hope’ speakers were almost exclusively pastors or other religious speakers who describe their participation in the public school event as ‘worship[]’ and ‘minister[ing] to over 1000 kids’, including hashtags on social media posts describing the event like ‘#GodGetsTheGlory’.” ...

The allegations taken as true suggest coercion as understood by Supreme Court precedent, and the prohibition against this practice was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation....

The Title IX claim focuses primarily on two aspects of the Day of Hope program: 1) transgender and gender non-conforming students were forced into “either male or female segregated gender groups based on their outward appearance and without their consent”; and 2) while the male students engaged in “frivolous recreational activities,” the female students were “exposed to a ‘girls gender talk’ including traumatizing lectures by pastors and other religious figures about virginity, rape, abuse, and suicide, even being told to ‘forgive’ their rapists and abusers.”...

9th Circuit: Title IX's Religious Exemption Does Not Violate Establishment Clause

In Hunter v. U.S. Department of Education, (9th Cir., Aug. 30, 2024), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the exemption available to religious educational institutions from Title IX's ban on sex discrimination (including sexual orientation and gender identity) does not violate the Establishment Clause or equal protection guaranties. The court said in part:

Any practice that was “accepted by the Framers and has withstood the critical scrutiny of time and political change” does not violate the Establishment Clause....

Given the dearth of historical equivalents, ... tax exemptions are the most analogous case to Title IX’s statutory exemption.... Absent additional historical evidence—and Plaintiffs point us to none here—the history of tax exemptions near the time of the Founding suggests that the statutory exemptions that operate as a subsidy to religious institutions do not violate the Establishment Clause according to its original meaning.

Having considered the history of religious exemptions at or near the Founding, the history and tradition test requires us to look next to the “uninterrupted practice” of a law in our nation’s traditions....  The Department identifies a relevant tradition in “modern legislative efforts to accommodate religious practice.” ...

... [T]here is no evidence in the record that the exemption here “was drafted with the explicit intention of including particular religious denominations and excluding others.”...

... Here, when a school claims an exemption, the Department must make two determinations—whether the school is controlled by a religious organization and whether Title IX would conflict with the religious tenets of the controlling organization....  The Department has ... “never rejected an educational institution’s assertion that it is controlled by a religious organization” and “never denied a religious exemption when a religious educational institution asserts a religious objection.” ...

The exemption substantially relates to the achievement of limiting government interference with the free exercise of religion....

11th Circuit Enjoins New Title IX Rules in 4 States, Pending Appeal

 In State of Alabama v. U.S. Secretary of Education, (11th Cir., Aug. 22, 2024), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, issued an injunction pending appeal barring enforcement in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina of the Department of Education's new rules under Title IX.  The new rules define discrimination on the basis of sex as including discrimination on the basis of gender identity. They also reduce the threshold for concluding that conduct amounts to sex discrimination. The majority pointed out:

Before this action, every court to consider the issue across the nation—seven district courts and two courts of appeals— preliminarily enjoined enforcement of the rule.  The district court here, by contrast, refused to enjoin the rule a day before it was supposed to go into effect.

Judge Wilson dissented contending that plaintiffs have not shown the irreparable injury required for obtaining an injunction. ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Supreme Court Refuses to Lift Preliminary Injunction Against DOE's Title IX Changes

 In Department of Education v. Louisiana, (US Sup. Ct., Aug. 16, 2024), the U.S. Supreme Court refused to stay preliminary injunctions that two district courts issued to prevent enforcement of the Department of Education's new rules under Title IX. The new rules, in part, expand the definition of sex discrimination under Title IX to include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. All the Justices agreed that the injunctions should remain in place as to this portion of the new rules. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan, Gorsuch and Jackson would have allowed other portions of the new rules to go into effect. Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the court's decision.

Court Enjoins Enforcement Against Texas of DOE Guidance Documents on Transgender Students

In State of Texas v. Cardona, (ND TX, Aug. 5, 2024), a Texas federal district court in a 113-page opinion enjoined enforcement against Texas schools of a Notice of Interpretation, a Dear Educator Letter and a Fact Sheet ("Guidance Documents") issued by the U.S. Department of Education that interpreted Title IX's ban on sex discrimination to include discrimination on the basis of gender identity.  The court said in part:

The Guidance Documents' interpretation of "sex" and the accompanying requirement that schools treat "gender identity" the same as biological sex flouts Title IX. The Department lacks the authority to "rewrite clear statutory terms to suit its own sense of how the statute should operate," particularly in a way that undercuts a statute's purpose.... Yet this is exactly what the Guidance Documents do. By interpreting the term "sex" in Title IX to embrace "gender identity" as distinct from biological sex, the Guidance Documents are contrary to law and exceed the Department's statutory authority....

The Guidance Documents' expanded definition of "sex" are contrary to law due to violating another rule of interpretation. That is, Congress must "speak clearly when authorizing an agency to exercise powers of 'vast economic and political significance.'"... Known as the Major Questions Doctrine, it promotes the principle of statutory interpretation that courts should not assume Congress delegated questions of "deep 'economic and political significance'" unless done expressly....

Despite the Department's lack of authority, Defendants nonetheless maintain that Bostock supports the expanded definition of "sex." But this argument falls flat. Bostock stated without equivocation that its holding only applies to Title VII....

The Guidance Documents are substantively and procedurally unlawful in violation of the APA. They are substantively unlawful because the Department's purported interpretations of Title IX squarely conflict with the statute.... Additionally, the Guidance Documents are procedurally unlawful because they impose new substantive obligations on states and other regulated entities without adhering to the APA's notice-and-comment requirements—which were designed to ensure public participation....

6 More States Enjoin Enforcement of New Title IX Rules Barring Transgender Discrimination

Yet another court has enjoined the Department of Education from enforcing its new Title IX rules that interpret Title IX's ban on sex discrimination as including a ban on gender identity discrimination. In State of Arkansas v. U.S. Department of Education, (ED MO, July 24, 2024), a Missouri federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement against Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota and the individual plaintiff, a student in a school in Arkansas who says the rule violates her religious beliefs.  the court said in part:

After preliminary review and without ultimately deciding the issue, the Court is persuaded that plaintiffs have a fair chance of prevailing on their argument that the reasoning of Bostock, a Title VII employment discrimination case, should not apply to Title IX. ...

Given that notice is the touchstone of Title IX, the statute contains no definition of sex or express prohibition of discrimination on the basis of gender identity, and it expressly permits sex-based differential treatment in certain circumstances, plaintiff States have met their preliminary burden of establishing a fair chance of prevailing on their argument that they lacked constitutionally sufficient notice that sex discrimination would be interpreted as including gender identity discrimination when they accepted federal funding under Title IX.

The court also preliminarily enjoined the new rules' expansion of the definition of harassment, concluding that the definition may violate the 1st Amendment by chilling speech. ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Two Additional Courts Enjoin Enforcement of New Title IX Rules

In addition to the nationwide preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Department of Education's new Title IX rules on transgender discrimination (see prior posting), two other federal district court last week issued more geographically limited preliminary injunctions against enforcement of the same rules. In State of Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services, (MD FL, July 3, 2024),  a Florida federal district court enjoined enforcement within Florida, saying in part:

HHS and the Final Rule interpret Title IX, and hence section 1557, to prohibit discrimination based on “gender identity.” 89 Fed. Reg. at 37,699 (45 C.F.R. § 92.101(a)(2)). The Final Rule is stillborn and a nullity if Title IX does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of “gender identity.” The Eleventh Circuit has spoken on this point, clearly: Title IX does not address discrimination on the basis of gender identity. Adams v. Sch. Bd. of St. John’s Cnty., 57 F. 4th 791, 812–15 (11th Cir. 2022) (en banc). Frankly, this ends the issue—the new Rule appears to be a dead letter in the Eleventh Circuit.

In State of Kansas v. U.S. Department of Education, (D KS, July 2, 2024), a Kansas federal district court issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the new rules in Kansas, Alaska, Utah and Wyoming, saying in part:

... [T]he purpose of Title IX was to protect “biological women from discrimination in education[;] [s]uch purpose makes it difficult to sincerely argue that, at the time of enactment, ‘discrimination on the basis of sex’ included gender identity, sex stereotypes, sexual orientation, or sex characteristics.”... The DoE’s reinterpretation of Title IX to place gender identity on equal footing with (or in some instances arguably stronger footing than) biological sex would subvert Congress’ goals of protecting biological women in education....

... [T]he court finds that the Final Rule involves issues of both vast economic and political significance and therefore involves a major question.... As such, Congress must have given the agency “clear statutory authorization” to promulgate such a Final Rule.....The court finds that Congress did not give such clear statutory authorization to the DoE....

... [T]he Final Rule violates the Spending Clause because it introduces conditions for spending that were not unambiguously clear in Title IX....

The court finds that Plaintiffs have shown that the Final Rule violates he First Amendment by chilling speech through vague and overbroad language.....

 [T]he court finds that the Final Rule is arbitrary and capricious because it offers an implausible explanation for agency action, is a sharp departure from prior action without a reasonable explanation, and failed to consider important interests as discussed herein.

Court Grants Nationwide Injunction Barring Extensiion of Title IX To Gender Identity Discrimination

In State of Tennessee v. Becerra, (SD MS, July 3, 2024), in a suit brought by 15 states a Mississippi federal district court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction barring the Department of Education from enforcing its new rules under Title IX insofar as they define sex discrimination as including discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The court said in part:

The Supreme Court recently held that agencies are no longer entitled to deference pursuant to Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc.... because Chevron “allow[ed] agencies to change course even when Congress [had] given them no authority to do so.” Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo,....

The Supreme Court further held that “statutes, no matter how impenetrable, do — in fact, must — have a single, best meaning....

In summary, the Court has found no basis for applying Bostock’s Title VII analysis to Section 1557’s incorporation of Title IX. HHS acted unreasonably when it relied on Bostock’s analysis in order to conflate the phrase “on the basis of sex” with the phrase “on the basis of gender identity.”...

... [T]his Court cannot accept the suggestion that Congress, with a “clear voice,” adopted an ambiguous or evolving definition of “sex” when it acted to promote educational opportunities for women in 1972.

Mississippi Today reports on the decision.

6 More States Fend Off Enforcement of Title IX Transgender Discrimination Rules

Four days after a Louisiana federal district court enjoined the Department of Education from enforcing its new sex-discrimination rules under Title IX against Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana and Idaho (see prior posting), a Kentucky federal district court issued an opinion barring enforcement against Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, and West Virginia which were plaintiffs in the case. DOE's new rules interpret the Title IX ban on sex discrimination to include discrimination against transgender students and faculty by institutions receiving federal financial assistance. Intervenors in the Kentucky case are an organization of Christian educators and a cisgender high school girl who objects to a transgender female who was on her Middle School track team. In State of Tennessee v. Cardona, (ED KY, June 17, 2024), the court in a 93-page opinion said in part:

The Department’s new definition of “discrimination on the basis of sex” wreaks havoc on Title IX and produces results that Congress could not have intended....

For purposes of Title IX, “sex” is unambiguous.  Therefore, there is no “implicit delegation from Congress” to the Department to change or expand its meaning.... But even if the word were ambiguous, there would be significant reason for pause before assuming that Congress “had intended such an implicit  delegation.”...  Education is one of the most important functions of state and local governments and is an area where states “historically have been sovereign.” ...  Accordingly, it is unlikely that Congress would have intended to delegate the authority to deviate from Title IX’s original purpose “in so cryptic a fashion.”...

The major questions doctrine assumes that Congress speaks clearly when it delegates to an agency the authority to make “decisions of vast economic and political significance.”...

The court also concluded that the new rules violate teachers' free speech rights, saying in part:

... [P]rivate and public institutions, as well as the students, faculty, and staff therein, will be forced to convey a particular message that may contradict moral or religious values....  For example, the Final Rule’s definition of harassment will likely compel “students and teachers to use ‘preferred’ rather than accurate pronouns.” ...

It is unclear how the Government’s articulated position can be seen as anything less than a tacit endorsement of a content-based heckler’s veto So long as the offended individuals complain with sufficient vigor, the refusal to abide by preferred pronouns can be deemed harassment and exposes a recipient of Federal funds to liability under Title IX....

The court also focused on parental rights and privacy rights, saying in part:

Although the Final Rule gestures at retaining a certain role for parents, it does not provide that parental opposition to their child’s selective gender identity requires schools to exempt that student from Title IX’s new mandate.  To the contrary, it implies that Title IX could supersede parental preferences about a child’s treatment depending on the case.

... [D]espite society’s enduring recognition of biological differences between the sexes, as well as an individual’s basic right to bodily privacy, the Final Rule mandates that schools permit biological men into women’s intimate spaces, and women into men’s, within the educational environment based entirely on a person’s subjective gender identity.  This result is not only impossible to square with Title IX but with the broader guarantee of education protection for all students.

ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

6th Circuit: DOE's Interpretive Letter on Title IX Should Have Gone Through Notice and Comment Procedure

In State of Tennessee v. Department of Education, (6th Cir., June 14, 2024), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that a "Dear Educator" Letter and accompanying Fact Sheet from the Department of Education interpreting Title IX should be set aside because they amount to a legislative rule which did not go through the required notice and comment procedure.  At issue are documents from DOE interpreting Title IX's ban on sex discrimination as covering discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in education programs and activities that receive federal financial aid. The suit challenging these documents was brought by 20 states whose policies on separate sex programs are based on biological sex.  In a footnote, the majority added:

We are aware that the Federal Register recently published a final rule amending the Department of Education’s Title IX regulations.... This new rule does not moot this case for two reasons.  First, the final rule does not go into effect until August 2024.  Second, the final rule does not cover everything that is covered by the documents, like housing and athletics.

Judge Boggs dissented, contending that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the lawsuit, saying in part:

... [T]he Interpretation, “Dear Educator” Letter, and Fact Sheet ,,, are interpretative rules or policy statements, which are generally not final for purposes of judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act.....

I agree that the Documents are intended to have in terrorem effect on states and school districts such as the plaintiffs.  They clearly can be interpreted as desiring a change in voluntary policies by recipients of federal funding.  However, the same could be said of a major Presidential address or a Secretarial campaign targeting the States with speeches and public statements.

DOE Enjoined from Applying New Title IX Rules Protecting Transgender Students In 4 States

In State of Louisiana v. U.S. Department of Education, (WD LA, June 13, 2024), a Louisiana federal district court enjoined the Department of Education from enforcing against four states new rules under Title IX which, among other things, bar discrimination by educational institutions against transgender students. (See prior posting). The new rules essentially apply the Supreme Court's interpretation of Title VII in the Bostock case to Title IX as well. The injunction applies to the states that were plaintiffs in the case-- Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana and Idaho. The court found that the new rules violate a number of statutory and constitutional provisions, saying in part:

In applying these statutory principles to Title IX, the Court finds that the term “sex discrimination” only included discrimination against biological males and females at the time of enactment. ,,,,

... [T]his Court finds that the application of Bostock and the Final Rule’s definition of “sex discrimination” contradict the purpose of Title IX.... Bostock does not apply because the purpose of Title VII to prohibit discrimination in hiring is different than Title IX’s purpose to protect biological women from discrimination in education.  ...

Defendants thus seemingly use Bostock in an attempt to circumvent Congress and make major changes to the text, structure, and purpose of Title IX. Such changes are undoubtedly contrary to Title IX and contrary to the Law.....

Plaintiffs argue the Final Rule’s new broad “severe or pervasive” standard, which considers speech or other expressive conduct that “limits” a person’s ability to participate in a program to be discriminatory harassment, cannot be squared with Title IX....

While Title VII is vastly important, and the Court sees the merits in harassment standards set forth in those provisions, the Court cannot simply apply the same standard to federally funded educational institutions. The “harassment standard” created by the Final Rule is obviously contrary to Title IX, and Plaintiffs have made compelling arguments for how it can violate the free speech right of the First Amendment. ...

Because the Final Rule is a matter of both vast economic and political significance, the Court finds the enactment of this rule involves a major question pursuant to the major questions doctrine. Therefore, Congress must have given “clear statutory authorization” to the applicable agency. The Court finds that Congress did not give clear statutory authorization to this agency....

This Court finds the Final Rule violates the Spending Clause because it contains ambiguous conditions and because the Final Rule violates other constitutional provisions – free speech and free exercise. Because this Court has found the Final Rule violates the Spending Clause, there is no need to discuss the Plaintiffs’ argument that the Final Rule violates the non-delegation doctrine....

This Court further finds that the Final Rule is arbitrary and capricious because the DOE (1) failed to address relevant factors and (2) and failed to consider important aspects of the problem. 

Texas School Sues Over New Title IX Rules on Sex Discrimination

Suit was filed this week in a Texas federal district court challenging the Biden administration's new rules under Title IX on sex discrimination by educational programs receiving federal financial assistance. Among other things, the new rules provide that sex discrimination includes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.  The complaint (full text) in Carroll Independent School District v. U.S. Department of Education, (ND TX, filed 5/21/2024), alleges in part:

7.... This bureaucratic fiat prevents Carroll ISD from protecting private spaces like bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers for both girls and boys, opens girls’ sports to males, and infringes on the constitutional rights of students and staff.  

8. The administrative rewrite achieves the exact opposite of Title IX’s goal to promote equal opportunity for women. For fifty years, “sex” has meant the biological binary—differences between male and female. Respecting these biological differences is essential to achieving that goal—and Title IX recognizes as much. But now the Biden administration’s regulations will require schools to ignore sex to promote a person’s subjective “sense” of their gender.  

9. Schools must do so even though it deprives their female students of the equal opportunities in education that Title IX promised.

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

Nebraska Governor Says State Will Not Comply with New Title IX Rules On Gender Identity Discrimination

As previously reported, last month the U.S. Department of Education promulgated new rules under Title IX on sex discrimination by educational programs receiving federal financial assistance. Among other things, the new rules provide that sex discrimination includes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Last Friday, Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen announced that Nebraska will not comply with the new title IX requirements which go into effect on August 1.  His announcement says in part:

 “The Biden administration’s rewrite of Title IX is an affront to the commonsense idea that men do not belong in women’s only spaces,” said Gov. Pillen. “It’s also a direct attack on the Women’s Bill of Rights, established by my executive order last August.” 

Gov. Pillen’s executive order declares the biological definition of male and female and protects women’s sports and the privacy of women-only spaces. 

"Protecting our kids and women’s athletics is my duty," said Gov. Pillen. "The President's new rules threaten the safety of women and their right to participate in women’s sports. Nebraska will not comply. We must fight against radical gender ideology and vigorously protect the rights of Nebraska women and girls.”

DOE Issues New Rules Under Title IX Protecting Against LGBTQ+ Discrimination

The Department of Education yesterday, in a 1577-page Release (full text), issued its final rules under Title IX on sex discrimination by educational programs receiving federal financial assistance. Among other things, the new rules provide:

§ 106.10 Scope.   Discrimination on the basis of sex includes discrimination on the basis of sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity.  

§ 106.31 Education programs or activities....   (a)(2) In the limited circumstances in which Title IX or this part permits different treatment or separation on the basis of sex, a recipient must not carry out such different treatment or separation in a manner that discriminates on the basis of sex by subjecting a person to more than de minimis harm.... Adopting a policy or engaging in a practice that prevents a person from participating in an education program or activity consistent with the person’s gender identity subjects a person to more than de minimis harm on the basis of sex.  

In its Release, DOE said in part:

With respect to religious educational institutions, the Department agrees with commenters that §§ 106.10 and 106.31(a)(2) do not apply to an educational institution that is controlled by a religious organization to the extent that the provisions’ application would not be consistent with the religious tenets of such organization. 20 U.S.C. 1681(a)(3). If an institution wishes to claim an exemption, its highest-ranking official may submit a written statement to the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, identifying the provisions of Title IX that conflict with a specific tenet of the controlling religious organization. 34 CFR 106.12(b). 

The Department notes that that the religious exemption in Title IX applies to an “educational institution” or other “entity’ that is controlled by a religious organization, 20 U.S.C. 1681(a)(3); 1687(4); it does not address an individual student or employee’s exercise of their religious beliefs. As commenters also noted, however, RFRA provides that the Federal government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless the government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person . . . is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and . . . is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 42 U.S.C. 2000bb–1.  

... OCR considers RFRA’s requirements when it evaluates a recipient’s compliance with Title IX. An individual may also inform the Department of a burden or potential burden under RFRA by sending an email to RFRA@ed.gov....  

With regard to commenters’ concerns related to the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment, § 106.6(d) explicitly states that nothing in the regulations requires a recipient to restrict rights protected under the First Amendment or other constitutional provisions. The Department, likewise, must act in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.

The new rules also make other changes, including changes in grievance procedures. NPR reports on the rule changes.

UPDATE: On April 30, suit was filed by a Louisiana school district challenging the extension of Title IX to discrimination on the basis of gender identity. (Full text of complaint in Rapides Parish School Board v. U.S. Department of Education, (WD LA, filed 4/30/2024)).

Certiorari Denied In Transgender Bathroom Case

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in Metropolitan School District v. A.C., (Docket No. 23-392, certiorari denied 1/16/2024) (Order List). In the case (A.C. v. Metropolitan School District, (7th Cir., Aug. 1, 2023)) the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals-- invoking Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause-- affirmed an injunction issued by an Indiana federal district court ordering a school to grant a transgender boy access to boys' rest rooms. ACLU issued a press release on the Supreme Court's action.

2nd Circuit En Banc: Athletes Have Standing To Sue Under Title IX Over Transgender Girls on Girls' Teams

In Soule v. Connecticut Association of Schools, Inc., (2d Cir., Dec. 15, 2023), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc held that four cisgender female track and field athletes (plus two intervenors) have standing to sue a Connecticut high school athletic conference under Title IX for allowing transgender girls to compete in girls' track and field meets. Plaintiffs claimed that this deprived them of equal athletic opportunity. the court summarized its holding as follows:

We do not consider whether Plaintiffs’ Title IX claims have any merit or whether they would be entitled to the relief that they seek as a matter of equity, but rather whether the district court has jurisdiction to hear their claims in the first instance. We conclude that it does.... Plaintiffs have established Article III standing at this stage in the litigation. They have pled a concrete, particularized, and actual injury in fact that is plausibly redressable by monetary damages and an injunction ordering Defendants to alter certain athletic records. Second, the district court was not required to determine whether Defendants had adequate notice of a Title IX violation to be liable for monetary damages before reaching the merits of Plaintiffs’ Title IX claims.

This majority arose from splintered views expressed in 8 separate opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part from each other and spanning 142 pages. NBC News reports on the decision.

Florida Transgender Teachers Challenge Law That Bars Them from Using Their Preferred Pronouns

Suit was filed this week in a Florida federal district court by three current and former Florida public-school teachers who identify as transgender or non-binary. They challenge a provision of Florida law that bars K-12 teachers from providing students with the teacher's preferred title or pronouns if they do not reflect the teacher's biological sex. The 61-page complaint (full text) in Wood v. Florida Department of Education, (ND FL, filed 12/13/2023) alleges in part:

[The statute] unlawfully discriminates against Plaintiffs on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 because whether Plaintiffs may provide to students a particular title or pronoun depends entirely on Plaintiffs’ sex, and Florida has only an invidious basis—not an exceedingly persuasive or even a rational one—for discriminating in this harmful way. It also unconstitutionally restrains Plaintiffs’ speech in violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because it prohibits Plaintiffs from using the titles and pronouns that express who they are, the same way that their colleagues do.

The Hill reports on the lawsuit.

Baylor Gets DOE Assurance That It Is Exempt From Title IX Sexual Harassment Rules

In a July 25 letter (full text), the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights has assured Baylor University that, as a university controlled by a religious organization, it is exempt from various regulations under Title IX to the extent that they are inconsistent with the University's religious tenets.  As reported by the Religious Exemption Accountability Project, in the past many religious universities have been assured they are exempt from Title IX regulations barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, sex outside of marriage, pregnancy or abortion. (See prior posting.) For the first time, however, Baylor was also assured that it is exempt from sexual harassment rules. More specifically, it was assured that compliance with its religious tenets by the University or its students would not constitute “unwelcome conduct” under the Department’s definition of “sexual harassment” under Title IX. 

Baylor's letter requesting a ruling (full text) was filed in response to several complaints filed with the DOE Office for Civil Rights. The letter reads in part:

The University does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity or expression per se, but it does regulate conduct that is inconsistent with the religious values and beliefs that are integral to its Christian faith and mission....

The OCR complaints at issue here allege that Baylor violated OCR's Title IX regulations by its application of its Statement on Human Sexuality, Sexual Conduct Policy, Civil Rights Policy, Theological Seminary Policy, Baptist Faith and Message of 1963, and Truett Handbook to its campus community, both as a general matter and specifically in three situations: (1) the University's alleged decision to deny applications for an official charter for Gamma Alpha Upsilon, (2) the University's alleged response to notice that students were subjected to harassment based on their sexual orientation and/or gender identity, (3) and the University's alleged decision to pressure University media to not report on LGBTQ events and protests in September and October 2021.

According to an extensive report on Baylor's request, Baptist News Global says in part:

Baylor Assistant Vice President for Media and Public Relations Lori Fogleman said Baylor is responding to the “expanded definition of sexual harassment” under Title IX from the Biden administration, which includes discrimination against LGBTQ people.