Texas achieved its first victory in a lawsuit filed against the Biden administration over a mandate issued by two federal agencies. The mandate was issued before the administration amended Title IX to redefine biological sex, including “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” On Tuesday, a federal court ruled in favor of Texas.
The Education Amendments Act of 1972 includes Title IX, which prohibits any educational program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance from discriminating against any person on the basis of their sex. This means that no one in the United States should be excluded from participating in or denied benefits of such programs or activities due to their gender.
According to History.com, during a time when women and girls had limited athletic opportunities, a law was enacted known as Title IX. This law was a game-changer for female athletes as it significantly increased their participation in sports. Prior to Title IX, few opportunities existed for female athletes. However, after its enactment, the number of girls involved in sports increased exponentially. Additionally, the girl’s high school dropout rate decreased, and more women pursued higher education and completed college degrees.
A group of attorneys general has argued that the regulatory efforts during the Obama and Biden administrations aimed at redefining sex to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” provided an unfair advantage to biological boys and men who wanted to compete in women’s sports. They opposed a Biden administration plan to reintroduce the Obama-era changes to Title IX that were previously ended by the Trump administration in 2022.
The Biden administration faced significant backlash, especially from women’s groups, for their decision to modify Title IX through various means. However, they defended their actions, stating that it would promote equal educational opportunities for women and girls nationwide.
The U.S. Department of Education and Department of Justice, which are responsible for administering and enforcing Title IX, proposed a rule change to alter the law and issued mandates.
A group of 18 Attorneys General strongly opposed the proposed rule changes and contended that the changes would completely undermine the rights of women and girls. They argued that the proposed changes disregard the fundamental principle of Title IX, which is based on basic biology. The coalition firmly believes that these changes would make a mockery of women’s rights.
In June of 2023, Texas filed a lawsuit in response to the mandates issued by the agency. The state argued that the agency’s guidance was “arbitrary and capricious” and that it unlawfully expanded Title IX to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as protected classes.
According to The Center Square, earlier this year, when the Biden administration made its rule change to Title IX official, several states took legal action. Texas filed a lawsuit on its own, while Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, and Idaho filed a separate lawsuit. Additionally, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina filed a third lawsuit.
Texas won a significant victory on Tuesday with the first court ruling, which could set the stage for future rulings.
In the U.S. District Court Northern District of Texas Fort Worth Division, Judge Reed O’Connor was asked to rule on the legality of the federal government imposing conditions on a state’s educational institutions. The issue at hand was whether the interpretation of Title IX of the 1972 Educational Amendments, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, allows the federal government to enforce such conditions.
In a 112-page ruling, the court has determined that federal law would be violated if Defendants were to regulate state educational institutions in this manner. The judge also stated that the DOE and DOJ acted unlawfully by exceeding their authority, all the while neglecting to follow the necessary notice and comment procedures.
According to O’Connor, the agencies have not followed the correct procedures and have failed to promote equal opportunity, dignity, and respect for both biological sexes as required by Title IX. Instead, the Guidance Documents of the DOE do the opposite by advancing an agenda that is completely disconnected from Title IX’s text, structure, and contemporary context.
In his statement, he emphasized that letting the administration’s “unlawful action” prevail would essentially rewrite Title IX, resulting in a drastic transformation of American education and a significant encroachment on Congress’s authority. He firmly believes that such a move goes against the fundamental principles of democracy and is not how the system should work.
Judge O’Connor has approved the motion for summary judgement submitted by Texas and rejected the Biden administration’s request for dismissal in the case. The guidance has been vacated on a national level and a permanent injunction has been issued against its enforcement in Texas.
According to Attorney General Ken Paxton, the guidance from the DOE and DOJ would have compelled Texas schools and universities to permit biological males to access women’s restrooms, locker rooms, and other sex-specific spaces. He further added that any school in Texas that would refuse to comply with this mandate would have been at risk of losing federal education funding.
The administration’s redefinition of sex and other regulations were accompanied by a directive that warned of the withholding of federal education funding from states that refuse to comply.
According to Paxton, O’Connor’s decision guarantees that all school districts in Texas will not be obligated to adhere to the Biden Administration’s interpretation of Title IX, which includes gender-identity requirements. This means that schools will not be required to allow men to use women’s restrooms or locker rooms, participate in women’s sports teams, or use pronouns based on gender identity rather than biological sex.
It remains unclear whether the DOE and DOJ will contest the decision or not.
