The States of Kansas, Alaska, Utah, and Wyoming, along with K.R., a minor, and three organizations, Moms for Liberty, Young America’s Foundation, and Female Athletes United (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), sued the United States Department of Education and various government officials (collectively, “Defendants”) in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, raising claims that the Final Rule promulgated by the Department of Education titled “Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance” is unlawful. Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to stay the effective date of the Final Rule.
Factual Overview
The Department of Education issued the Final Rule, which is set to take effect on August 1, 2024. The Final Rule expands the definition of sex discrimination under Title IX to include discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. Plaintiffs allege that the Final Rule conflicts with state laws, imposes administrative costs and burdens, requires the redesign of physical facilities, and violates the First Amendment rights of students who wish to express their beliefs about gender identity and sexual orientation.
Legal Analysis
Contrary to Law: The court found that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the Final Rule is contrary to the plain language of Title IX. The court determined that the term “sex” in Title IX unambiguously refers to biological sex and does not encompass gender identity or sexual orientation.
Major Questions Doctrine: The court held that the Final Rule involves issues of vast economic and political significance, and therefore, Congress must have given the Department of Education clear statutory authorization to promulgate such a rule. The court found that Congress did not provide such authorization.
Spending Clause: The court concluded that the Final Rule violates the Spending Clause because it introduces conditions for spending that were not unambiguously clear in Title IX and violates students’ First Amendment rights.
First Amendment: The court determined that the Final Rule’s definition of sex-based harassment is impermissibly vague and overbroad, resulting in a chilling effect on students’ speech regarding their beliefs about gender identity and sexual orientation.
Arbitrary and Capricious: The court found that the Final Rule is arbitrary and capricious because it offers an implausible explanation for agency action, is a sharp departure from prior action without a reasonable explanation, and failed to consider important interests.
The court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining Defendants from implementing or enforcing the Final Rule against Plaintiff States, K.R.’s school, the schools attended by the members of Young America’s Foundation or Female Athletes United, as well as the schools attended by the minor children of the members of Moms for Liberty.
Schrag on Law 