Appeals court denies request to remove injunction on rule designed to enhance protections for LGBTQ students

This blog originally appeared at NBC NEWS.

Republicans contend that the policy is a ploy to permit transgender girls to join girls’ athletic teams.

A federal appeals court on Wednesday refused to lift a judge’s order temporarily blocking the Biden administration’s new Title IX rule aimed at expanding protections for LGBTQ students.

The ruling from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a preliminary injunction issued last month by a federal district judge in Kentucky. This order blocked the new rule in six states — Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia — though similar legal battles are ongoing in Republican-led states nationwide.

“In our view, the district court likely correctly concluded that the Rule’s definition of sex discrimination exceeds the (U.S. Education) Department’s authority,” the 6th Circuit’s three-judge panel stated in its majority ruling.

The Education Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment via email and phone.

Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman praised the ruling as “a victory for common sense.”

“For 50 years, Title IX has created equal opportunities for women and young girls in the classroom and on the field,” said Coleman, a Republican. “Today, the 6th Circuit becomes the first appellate court in the nation to halt President Biden’s blatant assault on these fundamental protections.”

Chris Hartman, executive director of the Fairness Campaign, a Kentucky-based LGBTQ advocacy group, warned that the ruling would endanger transgender children.

“We believe Kentucky schools have an obligation to protect all students, including transgender students, and that they should implement the new Title IX Rule regardless of the 6th Circuit’s opinion,” Hartman said in a statement Wednesday evening.

The rule aims to expand Title IX civil rights protections to LGBTQ students, broaden the definition of sexual harassment in schools and colleges, and introduce additional safeguards for victims. While civil rights advocates have praised the new protections, opponents argue that they undermine the spirit of Title IX, a 1972 law that prohibits sex discrimination in education.

Most Republican state attorneys general have taken legal action to challenge the new rule.

The regulation is set to take effect on Aug. 1, but judges have temporarily blocked its enforcement while legal cases proceed in 15 states: Alaska, Indiana, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

The regulation faces legal challenges from 12 other states where enforcement has not been paused: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, and South Carolina.

Republicans argue the policy is a ploy to allow transgender girls to participate in girls’ athletic teams. The Biden administration clarified that the rule does not apply to athletics.

In its ruling on Wednesday, the 6th Circuit panel noted that critics of the rule warned that implementing it just before the start of the new school year would impose an “onerous burden” on the states.

The 6th Circuit panel also expedited a full hearing of the case for this fall.

In granting the preliminary injunction last month, U.S. District Judge Danny C. Reeves in Kentucky noted that Title IX was intended to “level the playing field” between men and women in education, but said the department was seeking to “derail deeply rooted law” with the new policy.

“At bottom, the department would turn Title IX on its head by redefining ‘sex’ to include ‘gender identity,’” he said in his ruling. “But ‘sex’ and ‘gender identity’ do not mean the same thing. The department’s interpretation conflicts with the plain language of Title IX and therefore exceeds its authority to promulgate regulations under that statute.”

Responding at the time to Reeves’ action, the Education Department stated: “Title IX guarantees that no person experiences sex discrimination in a federally funded educational environment. The department crafted the final Title IX regulations following a rigorous process.”

The appeals court ruling included a partial dissent from one member of the three-judge panel.

“All three members of the panel, it bears emphasis, agree that these central provisions of the Rule should not be allowed to go into effect on August 1,” the majority ruling said. “Our modest disagreement turns on the question, in this emergency setting, of whether the other parts of the Rule can be separated from these central provisions.”

Read more.