Republican Louisiana AG Liz Murrill issued a statement calling the ruling a ‘victory for women.’
A federal judge on Thursday blocked the Biden administration’s transgender student protections in four states, halting enforcement of a new rule under the revamped Title IX framework that barred federally funded schools and colleges from discriminating on the basis of “gender identity.”
U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty granted a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the new rule in Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, and Idaho.
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, a Republican, issued a statement calling the ruling a “victory for women” that strikes down President Joe Biden’s “radical gender ideology and assault on Title IX.”
In a move that sparked controversy and a bevy of lawsuits, the Department of Education on April 19 announced a final rule expanding the decades-old Title IX law that prohibits sex discrimination in schools to now include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”
“These final regulations build on the legacy of Title IX by clarifying that all our nation’s students can access schools that are safe, welcoming, and respect their rights,” Education Secretary Miguel Cardona said in a statement at the time.
The changes, which stopped short of prohibiting schools from banning female-identifying male athletes from competing against females, were slated to go into effect on Aug. 1. Schools that refused to comply risked losing essential federal funding and the prospect of lawsuits.
Immediately after the final rule was published in the Federal Register on April 29, Ms. Murrill filed a lawsuit against the Education Department at the U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana.
Her complaint called the revamped Title IX rule “an affront to the dignity of families and school administrators everywhere” and “nowhere close to legal.” Joining Louisiana in the legal action were the attorneys general of Mississippi, Montana, and Idaho.
Judge Doughty sided with Ms. Murrill and the other plaintiffs.
He wrote in a 40-page memorandum issued on June 13 that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits that the final Title IX rule is contrary to law under the Administrative Procedures Act, violates free speech and the free exercise of religion, runs counter to the spending clause of the U.S. Constitution, and is “arbitrary and capricious.”
By Tom Ozimek
