In a significant legal setback for the Biden administration, the U.S. Supreme Court has chosen not to allow the enforcement of a crucial rule intended to protect LGBT students from discrimination in schools and colleges across ten Republican-led states. The administration’s rule, designed to extend protections under Title IX to encompass sexual orientation and gender identity, was challenged by these states, leading to lower court injunctions that blocked the rule’s implementation.
The decision from the Supreme Court denies the administration’s request to partially lift these injunctions, leaving students in Tennessee, Louisiana, and eight other states without the anticipated protections. The rule was set to clarify that discrimination “on the basis of sex” in federally funded educational programs includes both sexual orientation and gender identity. However, the lower courts concluded that Title IX’s reference to sex relates solely to biological males and females, a stance that has now been upheld by the highest court in the land.
Critics of the rule, including Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, argue that the regulation constitutes federal overreach and threatens the safety of female students by imposing mandates on schools regarding the use of restrooms and locker rooms. Murrill has been vocal about her opposition, describing the rule as part of an “extreme gender ideology” being pushed by the Biden administration.
Despite this setback, the Biden administration continues to emphasize that much of the rule unrelated to gender identity should be allowed to proceed. Yet, as the legal battles continue, the future of these protections remains uncertain, highlighting the deepening divide over LGBT rights in the United States.
The case also underscores the ongoing legal challenges facing the administration’s broader efforts to expand civil rights protections for LGBT individuals. As the court prepares to hear another significant case concerning gender-affirming care for transgender minors, the implications of these rulings are likely to resonate far beyond the ten states currently affected.
