The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a significant blow to the Biden administration’s efforts to enforce expanded protections for LGBT students. The justices denied a request from President Joe Biden’s administration to partially lift lower court injunctions that have blocked the enforcement of a new rule designed to protect LGBT students from discrimination based on gender identity. This decision impacts ten Republican-led states where legal challenges have halted the rule’s implementation.
The rule in question, introduced by the U.S. Education Department in April 2024 and set to take effect on August 1, aims to clarify that discrimination “on the basis of sex” under Title IX includes sexual orientation and gender identity. Title IX, a federal law established in 1972, prohibits sex discrimination in educational programs and activities that receive federal funding.
Despite the rule’s broad intent to enhance protections for LGBT students, including provisions on restrooms and locker rooms, as well as pronoun use, its enforcement has faced staunch opposition. The lower court rulings that have blocked the rule came from lawsuits filed by states and educational associations arguing that the new provisions overreach federal authority and undermine Title IX’s original purpose.
The Biden administration’s request to the Supreme Court sought to lift these injunctions to allow the rule to take effect while the broader legal battle continues. However, the Court’s denial means that the rule will remain blocked in Tennessee, Louisiana, and eight other states where litigation is ongoing.
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Catherine Lhamon defended the rule, emphasizing that it is a necessary application of Title IX to address evolving understandings of sex discrimination. “These final regulations clarify Title IX’s requirement that schools promptly and effectively address all forms of sex discrimination,” Lhamon stated. The administration’s position is that these protections are consistent with the Supreme Court’s landmark 2020 ruling, which extended workplace discrimination protections to gay and transgender employees under Title VII.
Conversely, opponents argue that the rule represents an overreach of federal power, challenging the administration’s approach as contrary to the original intent of Title IX. Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill criticized the rule as an infringement on states’ rights and expressed concerns about potential impacts on privacy and safety in educational settings. Murrill and other critics argue that the rule imposes mandates that could significantly alter school environments, including access to gender-segregated facilities and the requirement to use transgender students’ preferred pronouns.
The legal challenges to the rule have been part of a broader national debate over LGBT rights and federal education policies. Similar lawsuits in other Republican-led states have also succeeded in blocking parts of the rule. This ongoing legal conflict highlights the deep divisions over how federal laws should be applied to protect LGBT individuals in educational settings.
In a related development, a federal judge in Alabama recently declined to block the rule in that state, as well as in Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. However, this ruling was temporarily halted by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, reflecting the complex and contentious nature of the legal landscape surrounding these protections.
As the Supreme Court’s new term approaches in October, it will hear another pivotal case from Tennessee involving a ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors. This case, alongside the ongoing disputes over Title IX, will continue to shape the future of LGBT rights and federal education policies in the United States.
The Supreme Court’s decision to deny the Biden administration’s request underscores the contentious nature of the current legal battles over LGBT protections and the broader implications for civil rights in the U.S.
