Supreme Court Grants Cert. in Ban on Gender-Affirming Care for Minors

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted review in United States v. Skrmetti, (Sup. Ct., Docket No. 23-477, certiorari granted 6/24/2024). (Order List.) In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision, reversed a preliminary injunction issued by a district court in a challenge to Tennessee's ban on chemical, hormonal or surgical treatment of minors for gender dysphoria. The majority rejected due process and equal protection challenges to the state law. (See prior posting.) SCOTUSblog reports on the Supreme Court's action.

Louisiana Governor Signs "Given Name Act", School Chaplaincy and 10 Commandments Bills

On Wednesday, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry signed a package of 18 separate bills which the Governor's office described as " bills that will transform our education system and bring back common sense in our classrooms."  Among the bills were:

HB 121, the "Given Name Act" (full text). The new law prohibits any public or charter school policy "that provides for an inquiry of" the pronouns of a student or employee that are inconsistent with their biological sex, or "that provides for an inquiry of" their name that is not their legal name or a derivative of it. Teachers and other employees as well as other students may not be required to address a student by a name other than the student's legal name or a derivative of it, or to address a student using pronouns that are inconsistent with the person's biological sex. A parent may seek corrective action if a school employee refers to a student by other pronouns or by another name and may bring suit if corrective action is intentionally not taken. ADF issued a press release announcing the governor's signing of the bill.

HB 334 (full text) which permits public school boards to "employ or accept as a volunteer a certified chaplain to provide support, services, and programs for students, staff, and parents as assigned by a school board...." The new law also provides the chaplain with immunity from suit for actions or statements made under the program unless they were "maliciously, willfully, and deliberately intended to cause harm to harass or intimidate those seeking support, services and programs."

HB 71 that requires the posting of the Ten Commandments in every public school and college classroom. See this post for additional details.

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. 

Florida Restrictions on Gender-Affirming Care Are Unconstitutional

In Doe v. Ladapo, (ND FL, June 11, 2024), a Florida federal district court in a 105-page opinion held unconstitutional many of the provisions in Florida law that ban gender-affirming care for minors and regulate it for adults. The court, analyzing equal protection and substantive due process challenges, said in part:

The elephant in the room should be noted at the outset. Gender identity is real. The record makes this clear….

For some, the denial that transgender identity is real—the opposition to transgender individuals and to their freedom to live their lives—is not different in kind or intensity from the animus that has attended racism and misogyny, less as time has passed but still today. And some transgender opponents invoke religion to support their position, just as some once invoked religion to support their racism or misogyny. Transgender opponents are of course free to hold their beliefs. But they are not free to discriminate against transgender individuals just for being transgender. In time, discrimination against transgender individuals will diminish, just as racism and misogyny have diminished. To paraphrase a civil-rights advocate from an earlier time, the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice…..

This record includes overwhelming evidence that the House sponsors and a significant number of other House members were motivated by anti-transgender animus. This is clear from their own animus-based statements and from the failure of other members to call them out…..

Banning gender-affirming care for minors across the board in all circumstances, rather than appropriately regulating such care, is not sufficiently related to the legitimate state interest in safeguarding health.  

The ban on care for minors does not survive intermediate scrutiny….

[T]here are some, including the Governor and quite a few members of the Florida Legislature, who believe transgenderism—and thus gender-affirming care—is morally wrong. Enforcing this moral view is not, however, a legitimate state interest that can sustain this statute, even under rational-basis scrutiny….

[W]hether based on morals, religion, unmoored hatred, or anything else, prohibiting or impeding a person from conforming to the person’s gender identity rather than to the person’s natal sex is not a legitimate state interest…..

In addition to invalidating the ban on care for minors, the court also struck down various unnecessary limits placed on gender affirming care for adults.

The Hill reports on the decision and says that the state will appeal it.

Louisiana Governor Signs Women's Safety and Protection Act, Rejecting Gender Identity Classifications

On June 3, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry signed HB 608, the Women's Safety and Protection Act (full text) into law. The law states as part of its purpose:

To provide protections for women and girls against sexual assault, harassment, and violence in correctional facilities, juvenile detention facilities, domestic violence shelters, dormitories, and restrooms, or where women have been traditionally afforded safety and protection from acts of abuse committed by biological men.

Where there are multi-occupancy restrooms, changing rooms or sleeping quarters, the new law requires transgender men and transgender women to use only those facilities that conform to their biological sex. The limitation applies to public schools, domestic violence shelters, correctional facilities and juvenile detention facilities. The new law also provides a detailed biological definition of male and female that is to be applied to any state law or administrative rule that refers to an individual's sex. It additionally provides:

"Sex" means an individual's biological sex, either male or female, as observed or clinically verified at birth.  Gender identity and other subjective terms shall not apply to this Part and shall not be used as synonyms or substitutes for sex.

The new law goes on to provide in part:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, no governmental agency ... shall prohibit distinctions between the sexes with respect to athletics, correctional facilities, juvenile detention facilities, domestic violence shelters, or other accommodation where biology, safety, or privacy are implicated and that result in separate accommodations that are substantially related to the important government interest of protecting the health, safety, and privacy of individuals in such circumstances.

The law creates a cause of action for injunctive relief or damages to anyone who suffers direct or indirect harm from a violation of the Act. It provides:

It is a rebuttable presumption that requiring an individual to be housed with members of the opposite sex at a domestic violence shelter, juvenile detention center, corrections facility, or public school that is subject to the provisions of this Part is inherently discriminatory and is a cognizable harm to biological women under this Part.

Louisiana Illuminator has more details on the bill. ADF issued a press release announcing the governor's signing of the bill.

Suit Challenges Vermont Foster Care Rules on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

Suit was filed yesterday in a Vermont federal district court by two couples challenging a policy adopted by the state foster care agency relating to sexual orientation, gender identity/ expression (SOGIE). Plaintiffs allege that the policy is inconsistent with their Christian religious beliefs. The complaint (full text) in Wuoti v. Winters, (D VT, filed 6/4/2024) alleges in part:

According to the Department, to meet the “needs of each foster child” under Rule 301 (emphasized), all parents must demonstrate that they can support any hypothetical child’s SOGIE....

All foster families must show that they will unconditionally support and affirm a child’s desire to dress, cut their hair, or wear accessories to express their stated gender identity,,,,

Plaintiffs allege that as applied the policy violates their 1st Amendment free speech rights:

... [T]he Department’s Mandate requires applicants to agree to speak certain words, like inaccurate pronouns, and to engage in certain expressive activities, like pride parades, that express the Department’s preferred views on human sexuality, as a condition for accessing child-welfare services. 

... [T]he Department’s Mandate forbids applicants from expressing certain views, like the Plaintiffs’ religious views on human sexuality, and engaging in certain expressive activities, like attending church, as a condition for accessing child-welfare services....

They also allege that the policy violates their 1st Amendment religious free exercise rights:

... The Wuotis and the Gantts have certain sincerely held religious beliefs about the human body and human sexuality, and they are also religiously motivated to provide foster care and adoption. 

... The Department’s SOGIE Mandate conditions Plaintiffs’ ability to obtain a foster-care license on their willingness to speak and act contrary to these religious beliefs.

The complaint also alleges due process and equal protection claims. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. 

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.

Supreme Court Denies Review of Standing Decision in Challenge to School's Policy Supporting Transgender Students

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in John and Jane Parents 1 v. Montgomery County Board of Education, (Docket No. 23-601, certiorari denied 5/20/2024) (Order List). In the case, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision (full text of the Aug. 14, 2023 opinion) held that parents who did not allege a substantial risk of injury lacked standing to challenge school board Guidelines that allowed schools to support transgender students and to withhold information from parents about this when the family is not supportive of the student's gender transition. The district court had upheld the Guidelines. (See prior posting).  SCOTUSblog reports on the denial of certiorari.

South Carolina Legislature Passes Bill Barring Gender Transition Care for Minors and Mandating Schools Notifying Parents

The South Carolina legislature this week gave final passage to H4624 (full text) which prohibits health care professionals from providing puberty blocking drugs, cross-sex hormones or gender reassignment surgery to individuals under 18 years of age. It also bars use of public funds for gender transition procedures and provides:

(A) A nurse, counselor, teacher, principal, or other official or staff at a public school shall not knowingly: (1) encourage or coerce a minor to withhold from the minor's parent or legal guardian the fact that the minor's perception of his or her gender is inconsistent with his or her sex, as defined in Section 44-42-310; or (2) withhold from a minor's parent or legal guardian information related to the minor's perception that his or her gender is inconsistent with his or her sex, as defined in Section 44-42-310.

(B) The principal, vice principal, or counselor at a public school shall immediately notify in writing a minor's parent or legal guardian if the minor: (1) asserts to any school employee that the minor's gender is inconsistent with his or her sex, as defined in Section 44-42-310; or (2) requests a school employee to address a minor using a pronoun or title that does not align with the minor's sex.

The bill now goes to Governor Henry McMaster for his signature. The Hill reports on the passage of the bill.

Mississippi Enacts Law Defining "Sex" In Biological Terms

On May 13, Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves signed Senate Bill 2753, the Securing Areas for Females Effectively and Responsibly (SAFER) Act (full text). The law requires separate (or single sex or family) restrooms, changing facilities and educational housing space for males and females at public schools and colleges. It then goes on to define gender terms found in these as well as for other sections of Mississippi statutes as follows:

(1)  "Female" means an individual who naturally has, had, will have, or would have, but for a developmental or genetic anomaly or historical accident, the reproductive system that at some point produces eggs.

(2)  "Male" means an individual who naturally has, had, will have, or would have, but for a developmental or genetic anomaly or historical accident, the reproductive system that at some point produces sperm.

(3)  "Sex," when used to classify a natural person, means the biological indication of male and female as observed or clinically verified at birth, without regard to a person's psychological, chosen, or subjective experience, feelings, actions, or sense of self.

(4)  The following additional provisions apply to the use of "sex" and related terms: (a) There are only two (2) sexes, and every individual is either male or female. (b)  "Sex" is objective and fixed. (c)  Persons with "DSD conditions" (sometimes referred to as "differences in sex development", "disorders of sex development", or "intersex conditions") are not members of a third sex.

Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the governor's action.

11th Circuit: Excluding Sex Change Surgery from Health Plan Violates Title VII

 In Lange v. Houston County, Georgia, (11th Cir., May 13, 2024), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision held that an employer violated Title VII's ban on sex discrimination in employment when its employee health insurance plan excluded coverage for sex change surgery. The majority said in part:

The Exclusion is a blanket denial of coverage for gender-affirming surgery.  Health Plan participants who are transgender are the only participants who would seek gender-affirming surgery.  Because transgender persons are the only plan participants who qualify for gender-affirming surgery, the plan denies health care coverage based on transgender status....

 By drawing a line between gender-affirming surgery and other operations, the plan intentionally carves out an exclusion based on one’s transgender status.  Lange’s sex is inextricably tied to the denial of coverage for gender-affirming surgery.

Judge Brasher dissenting said in part:

... [T] the employer-provided health insurance plan here does not deny coverage to anyone because he or she is transgender. The alleged problem with this plan is that it excludes coverage for sex change surgeries, not that it denies coverage to transgender people. On the face of this policy, it doesn’t treat anyone differently based on sex, gender nonconformity, or transgender status....

... [T]he majority’s reasoning effectively eliminates “disparate impact” as a separate theory of liability. For various reasons, Lange is proceeding here under a disparate treatment theory, which is why the claim requires a showing of discriminatory intent. But we have developed an entire body of law—disparate impact—to address claims about certain facially nondiscriminatory employment policies that harm members of a protected class.... That body of law requires, among other things, an evaluation of an employer’s legitimate business reasons for adopting the policy.....

TLDEF issued a press release announcing the decision.

18 States Sue EEOC Over Guidance on Transgender Sexual Harassment

Eighteen states filed suit this week in a Tennessee federal district court challenging an EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace issued on April 29.  The lengthy Guidance includes the following:

[S]ex-based harassment includes harassment based on sexual orientation or gender identity, including how that identity is expressed. Harassing conduct based on sexual orientation or gender identity includes epithets regarding sexual orientation or gender identity; physical assault due to sexual orientation or gender identity; outing (disclosure of an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity without permission); harassing conduct because an individual does not present in a manner that would stereotypically be associated with that person’s sex; repeated and intentional use of a name or pronoun inconsistent with the individual’s known gender identity (misgendering); or the denial of access to a bathroom or other sex-segregated facility consistent with the individual’s gender identity.

The complaint (full text) in State of Tennessee v. EEOC, (ED TN, filed 5/13/2024) among other things alleges that the Guidance violates the First Amendment, saying in part:

By purporting to require employers and their employees to convey the Administration’s preferred message on controversial gender-identity preferences— for example, requiring the use of pronouns that align with an employee’s self-professed gender identity and prohibiting the use of pronouns consistent with that employee’s biological sex—the Enforcement Document unconstitutionally compels and restrains speech, even if contrary to the regulated parties’ viewpoints....

Requiring that employers and their employees adhere to EEOC’s chosen gender ideology orthodoxy likewise treads on religious freedoms.  Because Title VII provides exemptions for small employers, it is not “generally applicable,” and the Enforcement Document triggers strict scrutiny under free-exercise caselaw.... EEOC’s gender-ideology-accommodation mandate impermissibly violates employers’ and employees’ free-exercise rights.... Thus, adopting the policies required by the Enforcement Document would cause Plaintiff States to violate their employee’s First Amendment rights.

Tennessee's Attorney General 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.”

Accommodating Teacher's Anti-Transgender Beliefs Created Undue Hardship for School Under Title VII

In Kluge v. Brownsburg Community School Corporation, (SD IN, April 30, 2024), an Indiana federal district court in a 46-page opinion that sets out extensive factual background information, 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 school had initially permitted the teacher to refer to students by their last names only, but later withdrew that accommodation and forced the teacher's resignation. A primary issue in the case was whether continuing to allow a last-names-only accommodation would create an "undue hardship" for the school under the Supreme Court's definition of that term in its 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy. Finding that it would, the court said in part:

BCSC's business is "educating all students," which it achieves by "fostering a learning environment of respect and affirmation."...  Part of that is BCSC's mission to "afford[] dignity and empathy toward transgender students."...  Parents, medical professionals, administrators, and many students all agree that pursuing that mission would require transgender students to be addressed by their preferred names and pronouns....

Lest there be any doubt about disruption, Mr. Kluge himself believed that the Last Names Only Accommodation would result in disruption and indeed was encouraged by it.  He explained to Dr. Daghe that far from resigning, he was "encouraged all the more to stay." ...  After all, he believed, his "persecution" was "a sign that [his] faith as witnessed by using last-names-only . . . was being effective."...  Faced with Mr. Kluge's own statements—"pleading" with the school to avoid going down the "transgender path," seeking to discuss with students their "eternal destination," and hoping to stay because his "persecution" surrounding the Last Names Only Accommodation was being "effective"—complaints from others were hardly necessary.  While the Last Names Only Accommodation might have been intended as neutral, it ultimately was perceived as intentional....

As the Supreme Court held in Groff, undue hardship is to be viewed within the context of a particular business, not a particular employee.  The Court compares the cost to BCSC's mission, not Mr. Kluge's.  BCSC could either support its transgender students in pursuit of its mission and comply with the law, or accede to Mr. Kluge's accommodation and risk harm to students and the learning environment and/or substantial and disruptive litigation.... The law of Title VII does not require BCSC to continue an accommodation that actually resulted in substantial student harm, and an unreasonable risk of liability, each sharply contradicting the school's legally entitled mission to foster a supportive environment for all.  The Last Names Only Accommodation was an undue burden to BCSC as a matter of law.....

Excluding Gender-Affirming Care from Governmental Insurance Coverage Violates Equal Protection

In Kadel v. Folwell, (4th Cir., April 29, 2024), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc, in an 8-6 decision, held that an exclusion in North Carolina's state employee healthcare plan for treatment "in connection with sex changes or modifications" violates the equal protection clause. The majority held that "the coverage exclusions facially discriminate on the basis of sex and gender identity, and are not substantially related to an important government interest...." The majority held that the exclusion for "transexual surgery" in West Virginia's Medicaid program similarly violates the equal protection clause as well as the Medicaid Act. The majority in its 58-page opinion said in part:

[D]iscriminating on the basis of diagnosis is discriminating on the basis of gender identity and sex.  The coverage exclusions are therefore subject to intermediate scrutiny.  They cannot meet that heightened standard.

Judge Richardson, joined by Judges Wilkinson, Niemeyer, and Quattlebaum, and joined in part by Judges Agee and Rushing, said in part:

The Equal Protection Clause does not license judges to strike down any policy we disagree with.  It instead grants the states leeway to tailor policies to local circumstances, while providing a carefully calibrated remedy for truly illicit discrimination.  No such discrimination appears in these cases.  North Carolina and West Virginia do not target members of either sex or transgender individuals by excluding coverage for certain services from their policies.  They instead condition coverage on whether a patient has a qualifying diagnosis....

Judge Wilkinson filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

In the era of Roe, it was substantive due process. Now it is substantive equal protection. Make no mistake. The fundamental rights prong of equal protection is what is at play here, and while constitutionally mandating state-funded transgender rights will please some, it will politicize the courts in the eyes of all as assuredly as its substantive due process predecessor did....

Some States are reluctant to fund emerging treatments until the science can tell us more. Not only is the medical data conflicting, but there is a moral caution in this case as well. Self-righteous folly has long run through us all. The Tower of Babel toppled of its own hubristic weight. Yet still we moderns strive to bend nature to desire.

Judge Quattlebaum, joined by Judges Agee, Richardson and Rushing, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

In order to conclude that no legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons support denying coverage for certain treatments of gender dysphoria, the majority abandons settled evidentiary principles. Properly accounting for the record, questions about the medical necessity and efficacy of such treatments linger. And those lingering questions support the states’ coverage decisions.

NPR reports on the decision.

Arizona Governor Vetoes Bill That Would Have Required Transgender Individuals to Use Alternate Single Occupancy Showers in Public Schools

On April 23, Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed Arizona Senate bill 1182. (Full text of veto letter.) The bill, titled the "Arizona Accommodations for All Children Act" (full text) would have required public schools to provide single occupancy showers to transgender individuals who are unwilling to use multi-occupancy showers that correspond to their biological sex as determined at birth. In order to obtain the accommodation of a single occupancy shower, the individual would have been required to make a written request and to furnish satisfactory evidence of the person's sex. If that accommodation is refused, the person would have a cause of action against the public school. Conversely, any person who encounters a person of the opposite sex in a multi-occupancy shower room also has a cause of action against the school if a school employee or administrator gave the person permission to use the shower. In either case, the plaintiff could recover for psychological, emotional and physical harm.

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)).

Ohio Court Issues TRO Against Bill Barring Gender-Affirming Care for Minors and Transgender Women on Sports Teams

 In Moe v. Yost, (OH Com. Pl., April 16, 2024), an Ohio state trial court issued a 14-day temporary restraining order preventing the state from enforcing House Bill 68 which enacted the Saving Ohio Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) Act barring gender transition services for minors and the Save Women's Sports Act that barred transgender women from competing on women's sports teams. (See prior posting.) The bill was set to take effect on April 24. The court concluded that the bill likely violates the provision in the Ohio Constitution that states: "No bill shall contain more than one subject..." The ACLU says that it "will continue the litigation to ultimately obtain a permanent injunction on behalf of Ohio families whose children are at risk of losing critical life-saving medical care." National Review reports on the decision.